Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of receivers

Legal area

Court

28 Mar 2025

BEIJING RENJI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT GROUP CO., LTD v. ZHU MIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1295
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA189/2025

The application for interim-interim receivership was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a serious or urgent risk of dissipation: the September 2024 transfer was transparent and publicly disclosed, the assets remained caught by an existing Mareva injunction, less-draconian remedies (including contempt proceedings and supervisory measures) were available, and the balance of fairness did not justify the appointment of receivers with draconian powers on the expedited footing sought.
25 Sept 2024

GUANGZHOU ZHOUTOUZUI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SUN ZHICHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1940
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1039/2023

No triable issue: the Court held Mr Meng had authority (usual authority by office and, in any event, ratification by the HK Branch's conduct), the Deed of Appointment was validly executed under s20(2) CPO by virtue of the LS mark and attendant wording or alternatively valid under hand pursuant to the Share Charge, and therefore the defendants cannot raise an arguable defence; summary judgment granted for the Company.
10 Jul 2024

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LAU LAI WENDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1829
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1478/2017

On the material before the court the criteria for appointment of receivers were satisfied: the assets are fund interests domiciled in Luxembourg and receivership was shown to be a practical, cost-effective method of enforcement without undue delay; the application was unopposed, and an order in the amended draft was therefore justified.
21 Apr 2022

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO., LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2009

The court granted the appointment of receivers because the papers were properly served, the evidence established that without receivers there was no practical means to realise the assets to pay the substantial costs due to the plaintiff, and the application was otherwise well-founded subject to the plaintiff filing the stated undertaking/affirmation.
21 Apr 2022

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO., LTD v. GOLD GLOBAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL17/2009

Given proper service, uncontested evidence establishing necessity to realise the only identified assets to meet a substantial costs liability, and absence of any defence or practical alternative, the court exercised its discretion to appoint receivers over Mr Hu's identified assets, subject to the Plaintiff filing an undertaking by way of affirmation verifying its Hong Kong assets.
21 Apr 2022

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO., LTD v. HARMUTTY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1423
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL18/2009

The application for the appointment of receivers was granted because the applicant demonstrated proper service, submitted evidence establishing the necessity of receivers to realise Mr Hu's identified assets to satisfy the costs due to the plaintiff, and undertook to file an affirmation verifying the plaintiff's Hong Kong assets; accordingly the court granted the order in terms of the amended draft subject to that undertaking.
31 Jul 2020

SMART EDGE LTD v. LUN HAU MUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1900
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1242/2020

The application for interim-interim injunctions was refused because extreme urgency was not demonstrated, procedural unfairness and last-minute evidence disadvantaged the Defendants, there was no clear showing of irreparable harm to the Company, the Receivers' actions had contributed to the confusion relied upon, and maintaining the status quo pending determination of the OS better protected the Company and its innocent creditors.
31 May 2018

ACROPOLIS LTD v. W&Q INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1195
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW218/2017

The judge found a good prima facie case for winding up based on convincing evidence of a fraudulent placing and related misconduct, concluded the CA Undertakings had been breached and that the company's operations were paralysed by mass resignations and harassment traceable to the New Directors; given urgency and lack of workable alternative the court exercised its discretion to appoint provisional liquidators to preserve and stabilise the business and assets, and refused to require an undertaking as to damages in the special circumstances.
9 Feb 2018

BARCLAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. ANTOINE MEKNI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2094/2017

Given the existence of final English judgment, clear evidence that the 6th defendant holds assets in Hong Kong, strong prima facie evidence of breaches of Hong Kong freezing injunctions and a real risk of dissipation, together with the absence of any substantial defence and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience required appointment of receivers over the 6th defendant to protect the assets and ensure effectiveness of the freezing orders.
31 Jan 2018

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

[2018] HKCFI 194
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1766/2014

The receivership was discharged insofar as necessary because there had been a highly material change of circumstances and non‑disclosure of material facts: a large majority of plaintiffs had contracted to sell and been paid for their beneficial interests (thereby removing the primary beneficiaries the receivership was meant to protect), the purchase funds originated from an interested party (Tianrui), and material facts were not disclosed to the court when critical directions were given; accordingly the original justification for the receivership no longer existed and the court should dischar…