Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tracing and preservation of assets

Legal area

Court

2 May 2024

BAI LING XIN v. LEUNG HO KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 732
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2129/2022

The court found cogent and compelling evidence from prior disclosure and remittance records that plaintiff's funds were transferred into the named bank accounts; the documents sought were specific and necessary to trace and preserve assets; the banks raised no substantive objection and took neutral stances; balancing privacy and burden against the plaintiff's legitimate proprietary claim, disclosure orders under s21 EO or Norwich Pharmacal were justified and should be granted with costs directions.
13 Oct 2023

XIAO YUEQIONG v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1535
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1847/2023

The court had jurisdiction under s21 Evidence Ordinance; the applicant produced cogent evidence (bank statements, police report) that serious fraudulent transfers occurred; the disclosure sought was specific, necessary for tracing and preserving assets and was likely to produce substantial benefit; defendants raised no substantive objection and were able to comply; accordingly a Norwich Pharmacal order was granted in the terms of the draft order as amended by the court.
20 Apr 2018

A v. P company AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 907
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP289/2018

The court granted Norwich Pharmacal disclosure and ancillary gagging and anonymisation relief because the plaintiff provided cogent evidence of impersonation fraud, the disclosure sought was specific and necessary to trace and preserve assets, other reasonable avenues had been exhausted, and there was a real risk that notifying suspected wrongdoers would frustrate recovery.
25 Jul 2014

LUEN TAT WATCH BAND MANUFACTURER LTD v. LI SIN MAN SELINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUEN TAT WATCH BAND MANUFACTURER LTD v. LI SIN MAN SELINE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1428/2012

The appeal was dismissed: a continuation of the interim stay of the Liquidator’s Actions was appropriate because, on a balance of convenience and fairness and proper case management, the outcome of the Main Action may render the Liquidator’s Actions unnecessary and there was no sufficient justification or urgency to vary the stay to permit interim tracing and preservation; the master did not err in concluding overlap and potential waste of costs justified continuation of the stay.

Hong Kong Case Law

BAI LING XIN v. LEUNG HO KWAN AND ANOTHER

XIAO YUEQIONG v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

A v. P company AND OTHERS

LUEN TAT WATCH BAND MANUFACTURER LTD v. LI SIN MAN SELINE AND ANOTHER