Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undertaking to court

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2023

WONG LUEN HANG AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUK LUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 304
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP243/2021

Defendants were guilty of civil contempt because they failed to comply with the 3rd Orders and the recorded Undertaking by not producing required accounting and supporting documents and by delaying the auditors' accounting adjustments; the requisite mental element was established by attributed knowledge through agents and by defendants' own admissions; penal notices and substituted service were valid and did not defeat committal; sentencing was reserved and indemnity costs ordered nisi.
26 Jul 2022

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP932/2020

The defendant was guilty of contempt because transfers occurred in breach of the injunction and she authorised, permitted or failed to prevent them through her agent (Tong) who used her legal representative chop; she knew of the injunction and prior contempt ruling, did not take all reasonable steps to prevent breaches, and her defences (impossibility, delay, abuse, HFA undertaking) failed on the evidence.
21 Apr 2022

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO., LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL17/2009

Given proper service, uncontested evidence establishing necessity to realise the only identified assets to meet a substantial costs liability, and absence of any defence or practical alternative, the court exercised its discretion to appoint receivers over Mr Hu's identified assets, subject to the Plaintiff filing an undertaking by way of affirmation verifying its Hong Kong assets.
23 Feb 2022

特廣有限公司 v. 華都中心業主立案法團 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1063/2019

The IO breached its express undertaking to the Court of Appeal by failing to provide the required calculation of the refund and by delaying the refund, but those breaches were cured promptly; paragraph 3 of the Lands Tribunal Order being a declaration cannot support contempt proceedings; R2-8 are not personally liable because the breaches were cured before they were served and s29A protections apply; consequence limited to costs rather than punitive committal.
2 Nov 2021

FAN YUXI v. LINBIAO TANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2032/2020

The 4th defendant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds or a real prospect of success to justify a stay of execution; the plaintiff's undertaking to hold the judgment sum in the solicitor's client account pending appeal was fair, reasonable and adequate, so the court made the garnishee order absolute, varied the injunction to permit enforcement and dismissed the 4th defendant's summons with costs.
15 Oct 2020

FAMEWAY INVESTMENT LTD v. LAI OI CHUN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP947/2019

The defendant deliberately obstructed the clearly defined right of way in breach of a clear consent undertaking; the acts were deliberate and non-accidental and the defendant was aware of the undertaking, satisfying the requisite mens rea for contempt beyond reasonable doubt; the appropriate penalty was a fine of HK$5,000 and indemnity costs to the plaintiff to be taxed if not agreed.
31 Oct 2019

JESSOP & BAIRD (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEO HWEE KHIM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2583
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1152/2017

The court found the 9 Sept 2016 notice was short of the requisite 48 hours when Order 3 r.2 is applied; plaintiff failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that defendants obstructed inspection or intentionally withheld the specified accounting documents; although non-compliance would have required the requisite state of mind, committal was unjustified and the originating summons was dismissed.
18 Mar 2019

HJ INNOXCELL LTD v. TEH BOON KHUAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 730
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1707/2018

Plaintiff failed to prove the defendant retained company documents after the documented August 2018 delivery up and failed to identify with requisite specificity documents still in defendant's possession; PwC's report did not establish withholding by the defendant; item 7 was overbroad and a fishing expedition; there was no committal or cross-examination to challenge the defendant's sworn compliance — therefore the summons for delivery up is dismissed.
31 Aug 2018

ASIA PACIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT FUND, LP v. KEYWAY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2228
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA689/2018

The court allowed joinder because the evidence sufficiently established that Keyway HK was the lender identified in the Loan Agreement and met the criteria of Order 15 r 6(2)(b)(i); the court granted a limited interim interim mandatory injunction to protect the pledged shares remaining in the custody, power and control of the defendants, conditioned on the plaintiff paying HK$36,019,426.67 into court and limited so as not to compel performance of acts the defendants could not possibly do, applying the balance of fairness test for interim interim mandatory relief.
24 Aug 2016

RAYMOND CHEN v. J. V. FITNESS LTD

Citation

RAYMOND CHEN v. J. V. FITNESS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO2/2016

The court exercised its discretion under s11(3) Cap 336G and held the particulars sought were unnecessary for fairly disposing of the matter given the Notice of Claim and Notice of Response; the respondent had complied with its undertaking by replying and did not breach it; therefore the application to compel further particulars and to strike out the Notice of Response was dismissed.