Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ancillary disclosure orders

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2025

MIDDLESEX GASES & TECHNOLOGIES INC. v. FLYALS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2798
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1158/2025

The court found P had made out a good arguable case and satisfied the requirements for Norwich Pharmacal and s.21 EO disclosure: the disclosure sought was specific, likely to lead to preservation or discovery of assets, and proportionate. Consequently the Disclosure Summons as amended was granted and the Mareva and proprietary injunction was continued until trial or further order to preserve P's claimed assets.
23 May 2025

CARMON REESTRUTURA-ENGENHARIA E SERVICOS TÉCNICOS ESPECIAIS(SU) LIMITADA v. CARMON RESTRUTURA LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1812/2022

Security for costs application dismissed because plaintiff demonstrated a high degree of probability of success at trial based on the Consortium Agreement and prior findings; setting aside application dismissed because the alleged non-disclosures were either not material (DIFC matters, deadline misstatement) or had been brought to the court's attention prior to granting leave (D2's 7th affidavit) and remedial steps were insufficient to vitiate the ex parte leave; costs ordered to plaintiff to be summarily assessed on paper.
18 Mar 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

The court dismissed the Confidentiality Summons because Ms Ding failed to meet the high necessity threshold to depart from open justice under BOR Art 10; the Clarification Summons (other than a consented amendment to exclude a specified US$ amount) was refused because negative or anticipatory declarations were unnecessary, premature or would not serve practical utility, the JLL management issue had been appropriately resolved in the English court which was better placed to adjudicate, and the disclosure obligations ancillary to the Mareva injunction require strict and potentially ongoing comp…
5 Feb 2024

CARMON REESTRUTURA-ENGENHARIA E SERVICOS TÉCNICOS ESPECIAIS(SU) LIMITADA v. CARMON RESTRUTURA LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1812/2022

The court held that ancillary disclosure was necessary and proportionate to enable tracing of funds dissipated from the D1 DBS account into the Emirates accounts; the bankers' books order expressly authorised use of information for investigations and for commencing or pursuing proceedings elsewhere, so reliance on Dubai disclosures did not breach the Hong Kong undertakings, and any implied Dubai undertaking was subsumed by the express leave; accordingly the summons for ancillary disclosure was granted with costs.
7 Dec 2023

WELLY GRACE LTD AND OTHERS v. KEUNG YEE MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3082
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA649/2023

Recorder Fung held that plaintiffs satisfied the Mareva criteria as against D1, D2 and D13 and demonstrated a serious issue to be tried with reasonable tracing evidence to justify proprietary injunctions against D1, D2, D7, D8 and D13; proprietary relief against D4 was refused because plaintiffs failed to show the relevant funds or their traceable proceeds remained in D4's hands; court reaffirmed that proprietary injunctions must concern identifiable assets or their traceable substitutes and that a plaintiff must adduce reasonable evidence of such identification at interlocutory stage.
1 Feb 2021

CONNECT PLUS LTD v. LAU WING YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 273
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2132/2020

The court held that the proprietary and Mareva injunctions (5.1.2021 Orders) should be discharged insofar as specified upon the provision and completion of an agreed court-approved Security Package (legal charge over Shun Tak Property up to 50% indirect interest, payments into court by PB Cape and Sea Premier, and an additional payment), and that ancillary disclosure orders should be stayed pending discharge, because the proposed security sufficiently protected plaintiffs' monetary and traceable proprietary claims while preventing destruction of defendants' businesses.
1 Feb 2021

CANTON PLUS ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TONG ZHENJUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 273
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA227/2017

The court held that the 5.1.2021 Mareva and proprietary injunctions should be discharged upon provision and completion of the court‑approved Security Package because (i) the Security Package, subject to verification (title and ownership investigations) and actual payments/charges being executed, was sufficient to secure the plaintiffs' proprietary and monetary claims; (ii) continuing the injunctions risked destroying defendants' trading businesses and would be disproportionate; and (iii) ancillary disclosure orders would be stayed because they cannot have independent force once sufficient sec…
15 Jan 2021

CANTON PLUS ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TONG ZHENJUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA227/2017

The stay application was dismissed because defendants failed to justify staying ancillary disclosure orders; the court was not satisfied on the present evidence that Mr Lau beneficially owned and that the Bel‑Air property was unencumbered such that disclosure could be dispensed with; the balance favoured maintaining disclosure orders (with variations) to prevent irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs, and the injunctions were ordered to continue until disposal of the discharge summonses or further order.
15 Jan 2021

CHU KONG AND ANOTHER v. LAU WING YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1026/2020

Defendants failed to demonstrate sufficient justification to stay the ancillary disclosure orders because they did not prove Mr Lau's beneficial ownership and unencumbered status of the Hong Kong properties; the available Hong Kong property coverage (approx. US$10m) was insufficient against the mareva amount (approx. US$27m), creating a substantial shortfall and so the balance of prejudice favoured maintaining and varying the disclosure orders pending disposal of the discharge summonses.
23 Apr 2019

WONG KA YAN PATRICK v. CHEUNG KA YU NICOLE formerly known as CHEUNG LEE HUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1007
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2102/2017

The court found a prima facie tracing/proprietary claim over the HK$900,000 or the MTR shares purchased with that sum; delay and credibility issues did not negate a serious issue to be tried; defendant's disclosure of finances was insufficient to rebut risk to plaintiff and to justify release; balance of convenience favoured preserving the assets pending trial; accordingly an interlocutory proprietary injunction and ancillary disclosure orders were granted.