Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 21b high court ordinance

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2005

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN

Citation

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV3/2005

For purposes of a prohibition order under s21B(1) the phrase 'leaving Hong Kong' covers conduct that forms part of the trajectory of leaving the jurisdiction; entering a restricted departure area and presenting travel documents with a view to embarkation amounted to leaving Hong Kong in breach of the order. The order was not ambiguous on its face and s21B(7)'s reference to 'attempts to leave' does not mean that such conduct cannot constitute contravention or be enforced by civil contempt proceedings.
21 May 2004

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN

Citation

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV130/2004

The Court held that a prohibition order in the prescribed Form No.106 is breached only by actually leaving Hong Kong with knowledge of the order; mere preparatory acts or steps (including presenting identification to an immigration officer) do not constitute 'leaving Hong Kong'. Attempts to leave are dealt with under s21B(7)-(8) (arrest and return powers), therefore the finding of contempt against Wong Kam Yin was not sustainable and was set aside; the appeal by Paul Lee was dismissed on the facts concerning his obstruction.
18 Jul 2001

PINEMILL CO. LTD. v. LAI HONG SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

PINEMILL CO. LTD. v. LAI HONG SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW19/1998

The court has jurisdiction under section 21L High Court Ordinance to grant an injunction restraining the 3rd respondent from leaving the jurisdiction pending completion of the section 221 private examination; given the evidence of evasive conduct and real risk of non-attendance, it was appropriate to exercise discretion to grant the injunction subject to sufficient security of HK$1.5 million by payment into court or bank guarantee, forfeitable on failure to attend, and to require notice of any change of contact information.
11 Sept 2000

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.

Citation

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16440/1998

Given the existing judgment entitling the defendant to substantial costs, the plaintiff's admitted intention to leave Hong Kong, his lack of a permanent residence or assets in Hong Kong and failure to provide particulars or security, the prohibition order under s21B was properly maintained and will only be lifted if the plaintiff provides security in the sum of $500,000.
17 Aug 1999

AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES (ASIA) LTD. v. TOPMA ELECTRONICS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES (ASIA) LTD. v. TOPMA ELECTRONICS LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3372/1999

Even where judgment exists, a prohibition order restraining departure from Hong Kong is only appropriate if there is at least some evidence that enforcement of the judgment would be significantly impeded without it; absence of such evidence requires discharge and costs follow the successful applicant.
13 Oct 1998

STANDARD LONDON (ASIA) LTD. v. HO WAI KIN, ROBERT

Citation

STANDARD LONDON (ASIA) LTD. v. HO WAI KIN, ROBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1023/1998

The court held that a bankruptcy petition falls within the statutory definition of a 'civil claim' under Section 21B and that Order 44A's reference to a 'writ' must be read broadly so as not to curtail the statutory jurisdiction to grant a prohibition order; on the facts there was sufficient risk of the debtor absconding and the requirements of Section 21B(3) were met, therefore the prohibition order was properly made and must be restored.

Hong Kong Case Law

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN

SINO WOOD INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG KAM YIN

PINEMILL CO. LTD. v. LAI HONG SAN AND OTHERS

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.

AVCO FINANCIAL SERVICES (ASIA) LTD. v. TOPMA ELECTRONICS LTD. AND OTHERS

STANDARD LONDON (ASIA) LTD. v. HO WAI KIN, ROBERT