Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Receivers' lien

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2022

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1564/2015

The court allowed the SH Plaintiffs' entitlement to costs but, on summary assessment, reduced the professional and counsel fees for duplication and excess: professional fees were reduced as duplication was found and attendance of three fee earners was unjustified; counsel fees were reduced despite the certificate for two counsel. Applying a broad brush assessment the court fixed the recoverable total at HK$680,000 and made no further order on costs.
28 Jan 2022

LI MING AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2017

On summary assessment the court reduced disputed entries for duplication and excessive time, disallowed the rationale for attendance of three fee earners at hearing, reduced total counsel fees substantially despite the certificate for two counsel, and summarily assessed the total recoverable fees at HK$680,000 (with leading counsel at HK$300,000 and junior counsel at HK$120,000).
28 Jan 2022

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 326
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

The judge found duplication and excessive charging in the professional work and counsel fees. Given the certificate for two counsel and the demonstrated overlap, the court reduced counsel fees to HK$300,000 (leading) and HK$120,000 (junior) and, applying a broad-brush summary assessment to account for duplication in Part D, fixed the total recoverable costs at HK$680,000. The court made no further order on costs in respect of this assessment.
23 Jun 2021

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2015

The Court declined to grant the declaratory equitable lien because the Former Receivers failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was an actual or potential indebtedness in respect of unpaid fees and disbursements secured by the Receiver Shares; critical evidence about the source and terms of alleged funding/loans was not produced and the factual basis was insufficient for discretionary declaratory relief.
23 Jun 2021

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1564/2015

The Court dismissed the Lien Summonses because the Former Receivers failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there existed any actual or potential indebtedness in respect of their unpaid fees and disbursements sufficient to support an equitable lien over the Receiver Shares; the evidential basis for alleged third‑party funding and loans was inadequate, undocumented and equivocal, and the discretionary declaratory relief therefore could not be granted.
23 Jun 2021

LI MING AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1282/2017

The Lien Summonses were dismissed because the Former Receivers failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the existence of any actual or potential indebtedness in relation to their unpaid fees: the asserted funding/loans (HK$28m) lacked contemporaneous documentary records and material terms, the evidence was insufficient and speculative, and therefore a binding declaration of an equitable lien over the Receiver Shares could not be granted.
23 Jun 2021

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1805
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2191/2014

The Former Receivers failed to prove on the balance of probabilities the existence of any actual or potential indebtedness in relation to their unpaid fees because the asserted funding/loans (circa HK$28m and HK$23.18m to receivers) were not supported by contemporaneous documentation, the terms were inadequately disclosed and crucial particulars were absent; accordingly the court refused to grant the equitable declaration of lien, dismissed the Lien Summonses and refused the ancillary order to keep shares deposited with court.
12 May 2015

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A. v. HIN PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

COMPANIA SUD AMERICANA DE VAPORES S.A. v. HIN PRO INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1449/2014

The court has no jurisdiction at the interlocutory stage to order a party to personally provide the receivers' remuneration and the plaintiff cannot apply on behalf of the receivers after the receivership orders were discharged; accordingly the plaintiff's summons for payment from Hin-Pro/Soar was dismissed.