Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay/adjournment

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

SIC v. WI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1795
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT68/2025

On brief consideration the Award was neither manifestly invalid for fraud nor manifestly valid to justify immediate enforcement without conditions; balancing the parties' conduct, delay, risk of prejudice to the creditor and lack of evidence of dissipation, the court ordered payment of partial security (US$600,000) into court within 14 days as condition to adjourn the setting aside application until the conclusion of supervisory appeal or further order; failure to provide security results in dismissal of the summons with costs on an indemnity basis.
14 Feb 2018

CHOITHRAMANI GURDAS SABHAGCHAND v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 84
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV74/2015

The Court upheld A Chan J's exercise of discretion refusing to adjourn the bankruptcy petition: the alleged emails, read in context, did not establish a binding agreement enforceable against the bankruptcy court; the judgment debt remained prima facie evidence of indebtedness which the appellant failed to rebut and CACV 117/14 had been determined by judgment in July 2017; accordingly the bankruptcy order was properly made and the appeal dismissed.
16 Aug 2017

黎秀琼對香港房屋委員會上訴審裁小組(房屋)

Citation

黎秀琼對香港房屋委員會上訴審裁小組(房屋)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV257/2015

申請人未能遵守法院2017年6月23日之除非命令，致上訴於2017年6月28日被撤銷；在該情況下，申請人對已完成其作用之除非命令及已作出的訟費命令所提出的寬免或押後申請缺乏法律依據，故應撤回並駁回其申請，並命令申請人須支付答辯人訟費。
3 Oct 2016

PETER CHEUNG & CO., SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PETER CHEUNG & CO., SOLICITORS (a firm) v. PERFECT DIRECT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2493/2012

The appeal is dismissed because the arbitration tribunal had considered and rejected Perfect Direct's factual defences and determined issues going to the validity of the 2010 guarantee and Mr Yu's entitlement; an enforcement order has been granted and not challenged; therefore res judicata and the proper exercise of the court's discretion justified the master's order to release the subject convertible notes, and no irremediable prejudice to Perfect Direct was shown.
9 Jan 2009

SANFORD YUNG TAO YUNG v. FAN CHI WING

Citation

SANFORD YUNG TAO YUNG v. FAN CHI WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6132/2008

Leave to file the second affirmation was permitted de bene esse, but the application for a stay or adjournment was refused because the debtor had not pursued the IVA with sufficient promptitude or provided adequate particulars or evidence of creditor support; late presentation of the IVA and inconsistent/insufficient financial particulars caused prejudice and prevented the court from properly assessing the proposal, so a bankruptcy order should be made with costs.
15 Jun 2006

RE ZHUANG PP HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE ZHUANG PP HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV288/2005

The Court held that despite the existence of the Company’s cross-claim, the petitioner had sufficient locus and the petition should not be stayed or struck out because special circumstances existed—serious allegations of deliberate asset stripping to defeat creditors, the public company context and public interest, together with the Company’s delay and lack of diligence in prosecuting its action, justified allowing the winding up proceedings to proceed; appeal dismissed.
12 Aug 2005

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHAN CHI TAK, RINGO AND OTHERS

Citation

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHAN CHI TAK, RINGO AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ442/2005

The court refused the adjournment and dismissed the application for leave to appeal because it was unlikely that the related High Court action would go to trial or yield admissible evidence to assist the plaintiff, ICAC documents were subject to the same privilege as EOC documents and thus not usable, and the plaintiff's claims were frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process with no public interest warranting a stay.
12 Aug 2005

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHAN KEUNG

Citation

YUEN OI YEE, LISA v. CHAN KEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7185/2003

Adjournment and stay were refused because the related High Court action (HCA509/2004) was unlikely to go to trial or to produce admissible evidence helpful to the plaintiff; Mr Lai was unlikely to give evidence favourable to the plaintiff; EOC documents were inadmissible and ICAC documents would be similarly privileged; the plaintiff's proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and constituted abuse of process, therefore the applications for adjournment and leave to appeal were dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
5 Aug 2005

RE ZHUANG PP HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE ZHUANG PP HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW56/2005

The application for a stay or adjournment was dismissed because the Company failed to show that the High Court Action or its cross-claim removed or overtopped the basis for a just and equitable winding-up petition or otherwise justified exercise of the court's discretion to stay; the petitioner had locus and no improper motive was established.
9 May 2003

CHAN WANG v. SIU HOCK KIN t/a MEE KWONG CO

Citation

CHAN WANG v. SIU HOCK KIN t/a MEE KWONG CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC619/2002

The court exercised its discretion to award the applicant costs of the application up to and including the hearing and directed that costs be dealt with in the cause and taxed under Legal Aid Taxation, leaving the master to apportion costs between liability and quantum.