Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of interim receivers

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

Because Hui had completely failed to comply with the Disclosure Order and thus prevented effective policing of the Mareva injunction, the court was satisfied there was a serious issue to be tried and a real risk that the injunction could not be enforced without receivership; applying the American Cyanamid framework the existing protective regime was ineffective and the balance of convenience favoured appointing receivers. The court therefore appointed the liquidators as joint and several receivers to identify, secure and preserve assets in terms of the draft order (with deletion of an unconst…
16 Sept 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4327
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

Because Hui completely failed to comply with the disclosure order ancillary to a Mareva injunction thereby preventing effective policing and creating a real risk to the preservation of assets, and applying the American Cyanamid interlocutory principles, it was just and convenient to appoint interim receivers (the Group's joint liquidators) to identify, secure and preserve Hui's assets and to investigate associated companies, with limits to their powers (para 5.7 deleted) and appointment of a supervising solicitor.
30 Aug 2019

CHEN HONGQING v. The persons whose names are set out in the second column of the Schedule to the Re-amended Writ of Summons filed on 26 March 2018 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2122
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2648/2017

The Receivership Summons was dismissed because (1) the Court set aside the Service Out Order removing the jurisdictional basis for the application, (2) Chen HQ failed to establish a serious issue to be tried — his competing pleaded cases were contradictory — and (3) the alleged necessities for appointing interim receivers were speculative and disproportionate; balance of convenience and concerns about non‑disclosure of funding reinforced refusal. The alternative interim injunction was also refused and no order was made on the Direction Summons, parties given liberty to apply for consequential…
3 May 2018

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

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 973
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

The court refused the interim 'interim interim' relief because plaintiffs failed to establish a real prospect of success that D1 had breached the Mareva Order or posed a serious risk of doing so: the Debtwire report was unreliable hearsay; counsel's remarks did not establish purchases that would breach the injunction; documentary evidence and prior findings supported D1's assertion that only c.13.19% of the registered 36.11% were beneficially owned by him and trust-held shares are outside the Mareva scope; the sale of c.3.8% did not, on the evidence, diminish D1's unencumbered assets below th…
10 Mar 2016

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2013

The court found an arguable case for discharge based on alleged material non‑disclosure but concluded that on balance of convenience the risk of further dissipation and prima facie breaches of the Mareva injunctions outweighed the defendants' speculative prejudice; accordingly the inherent jurisdiction to suspend was refused and the ex‑parte Receivership Order was continued pending full determination, with extended disclosure deadlines and costs ordered against defendants.
20 May 2015

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER

Citation

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA939/2015

The court appointed interim receivers over the specified block of CSI shares because, on the evidence, there was a clear risk of jeopardy to trust property and beneficiaries' interests arising from the trustee's conflicts, alleged misuse of trust funds, and orchestrated intimidation and disposals; less invasive remedies were inadequate to secure the assets and voting rights and the asserted third‑party prejudices and expert opinions were unproven or unreliable, so receivership was necessary and proportionate to preserve the trust property pending final determination.

Hong Kong Case Law

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

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

CHEN HONGQING v. The persons whose names are set out in the second column of the Schedule to the Re-amended Writ of Summons filed on 26 March 2018 AND OTHERS

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

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

張才奎所託管中國山水投資有限公司股份相關員工 AND OTHERS v. 張才奎 AND ANOTHER