Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Writ of fi. fa.

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 1986

DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD. v. FERDINAND ROBERT

Citation

DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD. v. FERDINAND ROBERT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/1985

The Court held that the Masters were wrong to refuse the applications: the plaintiffs were entitled to obtain oral examinations of the judgment debtors under RSC O.49B r.1 despite execution by fi. fa.; the District Court's jurisdictional limits do not preclude bringing proceedings in the High Court; the ex parte procedure was proper under the Rules; and concerns about costs do not justify refusal because protection lies in subsequent proof of properly incurred costs.
25 Nov 1985

SILKTEX TRADING CO v. KONG SUNG SIN t/a DARWIN FASHION GARMENT FACTORY AND ANOTHER

Citation

SILKTEX TRADING CO v. KONG SUNG SIN t/a DARWIN FASHION GARMENT FACTORY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6303/1985

The appeal is allowed because Order 13 rule 8 stays execution by a writ of fi. fa. for 14 days but does not, by its express terms, prohibit the issuing of such a writ during the stay provided no enforcement is attempted during that period; therefore Master Betts erred in holding that no writ could be issued during the 14 days and the orders setting aside the writ and ordering return of goods were set aside.
4 Nov 1983

ONPROFIT CO LTD v. TAN TJIN KIK

Citation

ONPROFIT CO LTD v. TAN TJIN KIK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3145/1983

The debtor was released because the judgment creditor failed to prove any of the grounds in O.49B r.6(3) to refuse discharge; the alleged contradiction about assets in Taiwan was explained by language/interpreter issues and did not establish wilful concealment or other disqualifying conduct.
12 Aug 1983

SUPREME FINANCE LTD v. WAN HANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUPREME FINANCE LTD v. WAN HANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11877/1983

Application dismissed because the praecipe did not expressly request imprisonment in the writ of fi. fa.; the court is not satisfied it has inherent jurisdiction to make an order that would effectively restrain departure after abolition of ne exeat regno; the Crown Proceedings Ordinance bars compelling a Crown officer to take steps that would amount to relief against the Crown; and the proposed order was ambiguous and capable of misleading the Director of Immigration.
14 May 1970

GAIL ISOBEL TURNER v. JAMES GIENN TURNER AND ANOTHER

Citation

GAIL ISOBEL TURNER v. JAMES GIENN TURNER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC59/1968

Because Rule 64 of the Matrimonial Causes Rules 1968 prescribes enforcement by writ of fi. fa. or sequestration and does not provide for imprisonment, and Order 0.49B of the Rules of the Supreme Court does not apply to matrimonial causes in the circumstances, the court has no jurisdiction to include a direction for the arrest of the judgment‑debtor in the writ of fi. fa.; accordingly the requested arrest direction is refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

DINERS CLUB INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD. v. FERDINAND ROBERT

SILKTEX TRADING CO v. KONG SUNG SIN t/a DARWIN FASHION GARMENT FACTORY AND ANOTHER

ONPROFIT CO LTD v. TAN TJIN KIK

SUPREME FINANCE LTD v. WAN HANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

GAIL ISOBEL TURNER v. JAMES GIENN TURNER AND ANOTHER