Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset preservation

Legal area

Court

30 Sept 2025

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 王一诚

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1257/2024

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate the standalone requirement of a real risk of dissipation: there was unexplained delay of c.5 months without asset flight, account statements showed no material withdrawals or transfers, no cogent evidence of dishonesty or fraud, and corroborative evidence supports defendants' claim of a novation/arrangement; accordingly Mareva injunctions were dismissed and costs ordered against plaintiff.
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.
28 Apr 2025

RE 上海昇奕科城实业有限公司 (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1744
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP298/2025

The court found all statutory and common‑law criteria for recognition and assistance were satisfied: the Mainland liquidation are collective insolvency proceedings conducted where the company's centre of main interests lies, assistance is necessary to enable the Administrator to secure and investigate Hong Kong assets (including preventing dissipation of at least USD60m), third parties refused to comply absent a recognition order, there was no undue delay, and the relief sought was consistent with Hong Kong law and public policy; accordingly the court recognised the liquidation and granted th…
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.
14 Feb 2025

廣西宏桂匯康食品有限公司 v. 廣州市國鼎貿易有限公司 AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 714
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP55/2025

The Mainland Judgments satisfied the requirements of s5 MJREO and/or were otherwise enforceable at common law, the Plaintiff established a good arguable case, there was evidence of assets and conduct giving rise to a real risk of dissipation in Hong Kong, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation of the post‑judgment Mareva injunction; accordingly the interlocutory freezing order was continued for D3 and D4 (with a clerical variation) and continued as to D1 and D2 pending proper service out with leave to serve out granted and ancillary procedural orders made.
29 Nov 2024

CHAN CHI FAI v. HIP WO ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1931
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1461/2023

The injunction was continued in varied form because the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case, the defendant has assets in jurisdiction and there is a real risk of dissipation given timing and unexplained transfers to related companies; failure to follow Practice Directions and delay were considered but not decisive; the balance of convenience favors continuation subject to variation to conform with PD11.2 and appropriate safeguards (ceiling, disclosure, security, specified exceptions).
12 Jul 2024

KUNZHI LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 652
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2023

The Court held that Question 1 raised a point of general importance and granted leave: a breach of the Keepwell Deeds can give rise to actionable loss where performance could have been effected in a manner that improved the plaintiffs' net position (including by gift or loan with waiver), so Stanford is distinguishable on these facts; Question 2 did not merit leave because the proper inquiry is whether PUFG adduced sufficient evidence to prove impossibility of all modes of performance, not whether modes existed as a matter of fact; the summons for asset preservation was dismissed for lack of…
28 Jun 2024

HUI LONG TING v. AU SIU CHUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1734
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI218/2022

The summons for a Mareva injunction was dismissed because, despite a default interlocutory judgment on liability, the plaintiff failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of the targeted asset: the land search showed no dealings, the Property is subject to Home Ownership Scheme restrictions making disposal not straightforward, and default alone is insufficient to demonstrate the required risk; therefore it was improper to exercise the court’s discretion to grant the injunction.
7 Jul 2023

STEPHEN ANTHONY SOYKA v. HANG XU TRADING CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 957
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1238/2023

The court granted the post-judgment Mareva injunction for nine months because the judgment established a good arguable claim, assets exist within the jurisdiction, the balance of convenience favoured preservation of assets, and there was a real risk of dissipation given the fraudulent context and partial depletion of funds; a police 'letter of no consent' was held insufficient to allay the risk.
24 Jun 2022

BKGGB as known as NGGB v. BKND

Citation

[2022] HKFC 137
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1410/2019

The summons was dismissed because the limited release permitted by the November 2020 Order had already been applied, OLN had obtained judgment rendering the proposed security and further sales unnecessary or prejudicial to the preservation of matrimonial assets, the respondent had prioritised litigation spending over the children's interests and had allowed a default judgment to be entered against him; on these facts it was not just or fair to discharge the undertaking or permit the proposed charges/sales. Costs follow the event.