Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Service and penal notice

Legal area

Court

20 Oct 2020

YEUNG LIN MUI v. CHU KWOK WAI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1307/2018

Paragraph 1 of the consent Orders was construed in its natural and ordinary meaning to require Vision to record and deposit all Company revenues; the Defendant knowingly and deliberately obstructed Vision from performing those tasks; his conduct had the effect of thwarting the court's process; he had the requisite state of mind (knowledge and non-accidental conduct); the Court, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty of civil contempt and dispensed with personal service/penal notice for pre-4 July incidents due to his prior knowledge of the Orders.
13 Dec 2019

張月清 v. TSUI YIU HEI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP845/2019

On proper construction §6b did not compel production of the defendant's personal copy of the Assignment of Debt so contempt on HCMP 602/2019 not proved beyond reasonable doubt; however §5c(ii) of the Final Injunction clearly prohibited the defendant from acting in relation to the PRC subsidiary and its assets wherever located, and contemporaneous notarized instruction and PRC filings signed/acted on by defendant's PRC lawyers proved he caused the police report and PRC court applications in 2017 and 2018 in purported exercise of beneficial ownership, satisfying the requisite intentional conduc…
13 Dec 2019

張月清 v. TSUI YIU HEI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP602/2019

On the evidence the defendant intentionally caused the criminal report and filed the 2017 and 2018 PRC applications, acting in the name or interest of the PRC Subsidiary and claiming to be its beneficial owner, thereby breaching §5c(ii) of the Final Injunction; by contrast the Assignment of Debt was the defendant's personal copy and §6b did not plainly require production of a private copy, so contempt on that charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
13 Dec 2019

張月清 v. TSUI YIU HEI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2970
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP875/2018

The court found beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant breached §5c(ii) of the Final Injunction by causing the criminal report and by instructing PRC lawyers to file the 2017 and 2018 PRC applications claiming beneficial ownership of the PRC Subsidiary and acting in its name or interest; the defendant was acquitted on the §6b production charge because the Assignment of Debt appeared to be the defendant’s personal copy and §6b did not unambiguously require production of the defendant’s own contractual copy; lack of personal service with penal notice and the fact the acts occurred in the Ma…
3 Apr 2013

EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN

Citation

EFFISCIENT LTD v. EDWARD EUGENE LEHMAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2012

The default judgment was interlocutory and not final so the injunction did not merge; the interlocutory injunction was properly in force only to restrain publication causing damage in Hong Kong and did not extend to publications made in England, and because the alleged breaches related to publications outside Hong Kong the Judge could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that contempt was established; appeal must be allowed and committal set aside.
7 Feb 2013

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG

Citation

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1828/2011

The originating summons for committal could not succeed because key orders were ambiguous or addressed to the company not the defendant, the Statement failed to provide required particulars (quasi-indictment defect), essential safeguards (proper service, penal notices, service within time for compliance) were not satisfied, and a de facto director cannot be held liable under O.45 r.5(1) on the material before the court; accordingly committal was declined and costs were allocated accordingly.
12 Oct 2007

WANG KIENG SEN v. CHAN YUI BIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

WANG KIENG SEN v. CHAN YUI BIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1954/2006

Defendants consciously decided on 15 May 2007 not to deliver the original documents to the independent auditors until 6 June 2007; that deliberate non‑compliance, even if based on legal advice or belief the order might be invalid, constituted contempt of court. Legal advice does not excuse the breach though it is a mitigating factor when fixing penalty.
20 Mar 2002

CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. v. KAM KYUN TAK AND SIU WAI FONG ANGEL

Citation

CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. v. KAM KYUN TAK AND SIU WAI FONG ANGEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9676/2000

Although the order was not personally left, the 2nd defendant was present when the injunction and penal warning were explained, leave for committal was properly obtained and the committal motion was personally served; the combined affidavit, investigator report and video surveillance proved beyond reasonable doubt that the 2nd defendant knowingly and non-accidentally continued to operate a fast food business in breach of the injunction, therefore she was guilty of civil contempt.
4 Dec 2001

AQUA-LEISURE INDUSTRIES INC. & ANOTHER v. AQUA SPLASH LTD

Citation

AQUA-LEISURE INDUSTRIES INC. & ANOTHER v. AQUA SPLASH LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18928/1998

Judge found beyond reasonable doubt that Aqua Splash Limited breached paragraphs 5 and 7 (failure to deliver up and destroy substantial quantities of goods, packaging and manuals found at Guan Pin Factory) and paragraph 9 (inaccurate affirmation of compliance); breaches of paragraph 2 (Nuremberg) and paragraph 8 (single printing film) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Impag HK Limited and Ms Connie Lin were held liable as directors under Order 45 because they had been personally served with the order and penal notice and therefore bore a duty to ensure compliance; committal proceedings…
4 Jan 1989

NICHOLAS PAPPADIS AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SHING SHEUNG BARRY AND OTHERS

Citation

NICHOLAS PAPPADIS AND ANOTHER v. CHAN SHING SHEUNG BARRY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2005/1988

Committal can only be sustained where procedural prerequisites (timely service and appropriate penal notice) are met or where the individual had notice and actively aided or procured the breach; applying these principles the court found the third respondent (director) liable for deliberate non-disclosure of bank accounts and for instrumental involvement in dealing with the 3-million joint venture share certificates despite imperfect formal service but with dispensation on notice grounds, and found the second respondent (general manager) liable for failing to take reasonable steps to ensure fu…