Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Warrant of arrest

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2020

陳玉屏 v. LIEW SHUK FUI

Citation

[2020] HKDC 779
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP720/2020

Evidence (affirmations and photographs) proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant repeatedly breached the injunction; given her established evasion of service substituted service was proper; consequently an order of committal was made but, because the defendant did not appear, the court issued a warrant for arrest to bring her before the court instead of imposing immediate punishment, and reserved costs.
15 Jan 2016

CKC v. SHTH

Citation

CKC v. SHTH
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP262/2015

The respondent, fully aware of the interim access order (9 April 2014) and the consolidated care-and-control order (7 August 2014), wilfully evaded compliance by absconding with the minor and avoiding service; the applicant exhausted all reasonable means to locate the minor and the respondent's conduct risked the child's welfare. Those facts established serious contempt justifying issuance of a warrant for arrest and committal (to be addressed to Bailiff, Police and Immigration) and warranting an order nisi for costs on party-and-party basis, while ensuring the respondent is brought before co…
3 Jun 2015

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “BO SHI JI 393” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL“BO SHI JI 393” AND THE OTHER SHIPS OR VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A”

Citation

THE OWNERS AND/OR THOSE ENTITLED TO SUE IN RESPECT OF A CARGO LATELY LADEN ON BOARD THE SHIP OR VESSEL “BO SHI JI 393” v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL“BO SHI JI 393” AND THE OTHER SHIPS OR VESSELS NAMED IN SCHEDULE “A”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ44/2014

On the available evidence, including the Vessel Ownership Registration Certificates which the court accepted as the best evidence of registry entries, the requirements of section 12B(4) HCO were satisfied: BWTC (and co-owner Liang in respect of 393) were registered/treated as owners such that the relevant person requirement and the beneficial ownership requirement for sister ship arrest were met; accordingly the applications to set aside service/arrest and to strike out were dismissed.
4 Sept 2014

RE CHUNG WINSTON

Citation

RE CHUNG WINSTON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4005/2012

The bankrupt's persistent non-compliance with disclosure orders, failure to produce any documents at private examination and failure to attend or offer lawful impediment established probable cause under s27(1) and grounds under s29(2) and s129(1) to issue a warrant of arrest to secure disclosure.
15 May 2013

LIAOYANG SHUNFENG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNNY GROWTH ENTERPRISES GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIAOYANG SHUNFENG IRON AND STEEL CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUNNY GROWTH ENTERPRISES GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP667/2013

The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the 1st defendant instituted the second PRC action which covered the same or substantially the same subject matter as the injunctioned PRC Litigation and that both defendants were aware of the Injunction Order; that intentional breach amounted to contempt; accordingly the court committed the defendants for contempt, imposed a fine of HK$350,000 on the 1st defendant and issued a warrant of arrest for the 2nd defendant to secure his attendance for sentencing and ordered indemnity costs with certificate for two counsel.
26 Aug 2011

BIRNAM LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “HONG MING”

Citation

BIRNAM LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “HONG MING”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ105/2011

The warrant of arrest was set aside because the original MOA was validly terminated for failure to pay the stipulated deposit, no proprietary or possessory interest in the vessel arose from the partial deposit, the claim did not fall within HCO s.12A(2) or the 1952 Arrest Convention, and material non-disclosure together with a likely misuse of the arrest process justified setting aside the arrest and ordering an inquiry into damages.
26 May 2011

ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTIES LTD v. YUEN MEI WAH

Citation

ISS EASTPOINT PROPERTIES LTD v. YUEN MEI WAH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP144/2011

On the evidence (affirmation of the property manager and complaints from occupiers) the court was satisfied that the Defendant repeatedly breached the 16 January 2008 restraining order beyond reasonable doubt; accordingly an order of committal is warranted, but because the Defendant did not have the opportunity to be heard the court will not impose punishment at this stage and will issue a warrant of arrest to bring her before the court to answer for contempt.
15 Feb 2006

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"

Citation

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ265/2005

Warrant of arrest set aside because plaintiff failed to satisfy statutory conditions for admiralty in rem jurisdiction: plaintiff did not prove the defendant was the charterer (second limb of s12B(4)(b)) and did not identify specific agreements relating to hire as required by s12A(2)(h); absent those factual foundations the court lacked jurisdiction in rem.
15 Feb 2006

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"

Citation

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ265/2005

Given the complexity and length of the proceedings and limited duplication between two senior practitioners, the court allowed a discounted but substantial award for solicitors' profit costs of $450,000, allowed the full counsel fees of $150,000, and awarded other disbursements of $11,562, totalling $611,562.
13 Feb 2006

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"

Citation

ORIENTAL OVERSEAS MARITIME SERVICES LTD v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "FAN YUN 123 (番運123)"
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ265/2005

Given the urgency (vessel under arrest), absence of a request for cross-examination and the late stage at hearing, the court must determine the in rem jurisdictional issue on the affidavits before it rather than ordering a full trial with pleadings and live evidence; the court proceeded to decide the matter on the material filed.