Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undertaking to the court

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2024

GOLD TOPMONT LTD v. OUTSTANDING MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2392
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP636/2022

The court dismissed the Originating Summons and Injunction Summons because the earlier O 14 summary judgment established the Plaintiff had no bona fide defence to the Defendant's claim, rendering any injunction unjustified; accordingly para 1 of D's Summons was granted (release in the context of dismissal) and no order was necessary on paras 2 and 3; costs were awarded to the Defendant as the successful party.
10 Sept 2024

LCFM v. LSF

Citation

[2024] HKCA 852
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP339/2023

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal: the trial judge applied the correct legal principles, made relevant factual findings including that there was no material change of circumstances and that the 2nd Applicant gave informed consent to the undertaking; there is no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and no other interest of justice to hear it; accordingly the undertaking remains in force and the summons is dismissed.
23 Apr 2019

RE YANG WANG JIAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW88/2019

The application was dismissed because the petitioner failed to prove that the Company's assets were in jeopardy; evidence provided (including the financial adviser's opinion and illiquidity of shares) was insufficient; petitioner delayed and had previous material non-disclosure; petitioner had not shown he could satisfy an undertaking for damages and alternative remedies (mandatory or prohibitory injunctions) were available, making provisional liquidation disproportionate.
13 Jul 2018

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

The plaintiffs were not released because the breach of the undertaking was not remedied, no adequate apology was tendered by the principals, the breach caused prejudice and conferred an improper advantage; instead the court granted a short extension of time to issue the fresh summons, awarded costs against the plaintiffs, and required counsel and solicitors to show cause why they should not be joined and ordered to bear 50% of costs.
19 Mar 2018

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 520
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3396/2015

There were no exceptional circumstances to depart from the ordinary rule on costs; the Court must take into account the Court of Appeal's findings that there was no breach of the undertaking and no breach of the disclosure order, plaintiffs failed to prove contempt beyond reasonable doubt, and material non-disclosure and available alternatives rendered committal inappropriate; accordingly plaintiffs must pay defendants' costs.
28 Apr 2016

FANLING PROPERTY CO LTD v. LEADER HONOUR LTD

Citation

FANLING PROPERTY CO LTD v. LEADER HONOUR LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5342/2015

The court held that the defendant had not shown good cause to be released from its undertaking or to withdraw the sum paid into court; the plaintiff's delay, alleged non-disclosure and the purported new evidence were not material or sufficient to make it unjust to hold the defendant to its payment into court; accordingly the discharge application was dismissed and the defendant was not permitted to withdraw the funds.
4 Sept 2015

LOKE MUN YEE TERESA v. LOKE KA MING STEPHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LOKE MUN YEE TERESA v. LOKE KA MING STEPHEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1952/2014

Although the conversation and taking of the mobile number would constitute contact within the undertaking, committal for contempt was not established because there was reasonable doubt whether the defendants had notice of the amended terms of the undertaking and doubts as to the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence; contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the originating summons is dismissed.
25 Jan 2013

CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY

Citation

CHIN LING INVESTMENT LTD v. THE GENERAL OF THE SALVATION ARMY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1/2012

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the threshold for interlocutory mandatory or prohibitory injunctions because the DLO enforcement risk did not justify reopening the earlier undertaking (government enforcement would principally target the defendant under Lester v Ridd), there was no material change of circumstances warranting mandatory demolition, and a less intrusive, practical remedy (defendant relocating the gate within its lot and keeping it open) preserved the status quo and balance of convenience; accordingly the plaintiff's injunction and the defendant's application for release from unde…
26 Jan 2011

LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS v. LIU PING KUEN

Citation

LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS v. LIU PING KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6728/1998

The plaintiffs are released from the 1999 undertaking because it was given on the basis of the defendant's mistaken pleadings that the whole Yellow portion was leased; that factual foundation is absent and the defendant remains able to seek interlocutory relief if the plaintiffs thereafter interfere; the damages inquiry is deferred until final determination.
30 Oct 2009

ELITE FOCUS LTD v. HO TUNG MING TOMMY AND ANOTHER

Citation

ELITE FOCUS LTD v. HO TUNG MING TOMMY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2001/2008

The court preferred the detailed PRC legal opinion and official explanatory notes and found that Mr Ho had not filed the required application with the Kunming Bureau of Commerce, had not complied with PRC statutory liquidation steps and had breached his undertaking and his duties as director to proceed with de-registration with due diligence; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under s350B(1)(h) to grant mandatory injunctions compelling Mr Ho to authorise Mrs Ngai to conduct the de-registration and to execute necessary documents, and awarded costs to the plaintiff on a party-and-pa…