Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of receiver

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2024

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2023

Given the plaintiff's default judgment, evidence that the Company and its distribution arrangement are assets of the 1st Defendant and that a charging order alone would likely be ineffective to secure future dividend receipts, the court exercised its equitable jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to receive current and future dividends and related payments in respect of the 1st Defendant's shareholding, as specified in the revised draft order.
20 Oct 2023

BB v. KO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2020

The court appointed receivers over the OFA shares under section 21L and Order 51 because BB established practical hindrances to ordinary execution, KO repeatedly breached disclosure and production orders, and there was a real and reasonable prospect that receivers would obtain information, take possession, procure valuations and realize assets to enforce the judgment; the order is made subject to BB's undertaking as to damages and costs awarded to BB.
29 Jul 2022

NG CHUNG YING DAYDES v. TANG MAN KIT otherwise known as TANG MAN KIT, TERRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2021

Applicant established serious issues to be tried (validity of removals/appointments, validity of Bonus tenancies, and validity of Tinting Lease including maintenance/champerty questions) but failed to show real risk of loss or dissipation or that appointment of an interim receiver was just or convenient; D1 remained the sole registered manager with legal power under s15 NTO to enter the Tinting Lease and the balance of convenience and demands of justice weighed against appointing a receiver, so the Summons was dismissed.
6 Dec 2021

LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3664
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2067/2019

The court refused both applications because the applicant's delay in seeking extension was inordinate and inadequately explained, she failed to demonstrate any arguable legal error or reasonable prospect of success on appeal against the final judgment or the receiver appointment, and she failed to justify unfreezing bank accounts or varying enforcement measures; accordingly both summonses were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
22 May 2015

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC HARBOR ADVISORS PTE LTD AND ANOTHER v. WINSON FEDERAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1257/2013

The Receivership Order made under Order 51 to execute a final monetary judgment did not require leave to appeal; the 3rd defendant as an ultimate beneficiary of an unadministered estate lacked locus standi to bring the leave and stay applications directed at the executor's shares; the leave and stay applications were dismissed on grounds of lack of locus, lack of merits, delay and prejudice to plaintiffs.
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

HCA1766/2014

On the evidence the plaintiffs demonstrated serious issues to be tried and a real, qualitative risk of jeopardy to the trust property through trustee conflict of interest, intimidation of beneficiaries and attempts to procure transfers; damages or isolated injunctions would be inadequate to protect the interests pending trial; accordingly the court exercised its discretionary equitable jurisdiction to appoint independent professional receivers over the specified block of CSI shares to preserve the property and protect beneficiaries pending final determination.
12 Jan 2015

LU JUN v. ASTROTEC COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

LU JUN v. ASTROTEC COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3125/2014

The application to file opposing evidence out of time was refused because the respondent's delay was unexplained and unparticularised, its stated logistical excuses (director in Shanghai, festive season) were not credible in the modern communications context and/or postdated the deadline, and the respondent's evidence lacked substantive particulars and conflicted with the winding-up statement, with no authority shown to justify the asserted use of s228A.
15 Dec 2014

SHAH AJAY KANAIYALAL AND ANOTHER v. WONG TAK KWONG JOLY AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHAH AJAY KANAIYALAL AND ANOTHER v. WONG TAK KWONG JOLY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1431/2008

The court found on the facts that the oral arrangements for marble and granite established partnerships (shared decisions, costs, profits and losses); Wong (and through him Simbel) misappropriated partnership stock, failed to account and unlawfully removed stock without payment; quality complaints did not convert the partners into buyer/seller such that Wong could withhold contributions; Simbel acted as Wong's alter ego and had actual knowledge, so it is liable as knowing recipient; accordingly the partnerships are dissolved and full accounts and enquiries are ordered with specific directions…
1 Sept 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL37/2005

On the evidence there was good reason to conclude Mr Ho substantively controlled assets held in third party names including the Ho Family Trust, he had breached the Mareva/disclosure order and there was real risk of further dissipation; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under established authority to appoint receivers as just, convenient and proportionate ancillary relief to protect assets and enforce disclosure, with specified amendments and safeguards to the draft receivership order.
1 Sept 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL40/2005

Given the evidence of continued and flagrant breaches of the Mareva/disclosure Order, the demonstrable substantive control by Mr Ho over assets held in trusts and corporate entities, and the real and urgent risk of further dissipation which cannot be remedied satisfactorily by less intrusive measures, the court held that the appointment of receivers was just, convenient and proportionate as ancillary relief to the Mareva Order; accordingly the receivership order was granted with targeted amendments and limited interim relief only by way of a short stay pending appellate arrangements.