19 Dec 2018
The plaintiff's procedural manoeuvre was inexcusable and constituted an abuse of process; the impugned directions and costs order were case management decisions within the discretion of Madam Justice Lisa Wong and should not be varied, so the application to vary the order is refused.
10 Oct 2012
The single judge correctly refused the appellant's application to reduce the interim maintenance because no material change of circumstances was shown; the appellant's failure to pay the sums due justified the revocation of permission to appeal and the cancellation of the stay; however, because the appellant subsequently remedied most arrears, the Court exercised its discretion to reinstate the permission to appeal on strict conditions — payment of all interim maintenance due before the appeal hearing and payment of the petitioner's reasonable costs to be assessed and paid within specified ti…
13 Aug 2009
The Mareva injunction was not discharged because the omissions in the ex parte affidavit were not sufficiently material to vitiate the grant and because there was a strong arguable case of fraud which justified an inference of real risk of dissipation; the court accordingly exercised its discretion to maintain freezing relief but varied the restrained sum to US$1.5 million.
17 Jul 2002
Fong was a director and agent of the plaintiff whose knowledge and conduct were attributable to the plaintiff; the plaintiff failed to make material disclosure in the ex parte application; accordingly the ex parte Mareva injunction (order dated 2 May 2002 as varied 31 May 2002) was set aside and no fresh injunction was granted.
9 Dec 1996
The court has jurisdiction to vary an undertaking to fortify where good grounds exist, defined as a significant change of circumstances. Applying that test here, the judge found sufficient change (shortened duration of restraint, changed parties/interests, and reduced risk to defendants) to justify reducing the fortification to US$5,000,000 but not to discharge the undertaking or to order repayment of the US$5,000,000 already paid into court.
23 Dec 1994
The appeal is allowed in part: the Court finds the judge was entitled to conclude on the evidence that defendants had not fully disclosed assets and could have access to undisclosed funds, but the imposition of conditions withholding payments until full compliance was procedurally and substantively flawed for lack of clarity and for being inserted without proper hearing; those conditions are struck out and the matter is remitted to the trial judge (Yam J) to exercise his discretion afresh on all contested issues including amounts and any limitations on the $1m payment.
8 Jun 1990
The judge below erred by failing to exercise his discretion to entertain the application to vary interlocutory orders; the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part and remitted the proceedings to the trial judge to determine whether and to what extent the orders should be varied.