Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Continuation of injunction

Legal area

Court

10 Mar 2025

RICH AND HONOR MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. MING YANG CAPITAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1559/2023

The court ruled that Plaintiffs are the effective winners of the Continuation Summons because Defendants consented to continuation of the injunction over HK$260,000,000; however the WP Transfers being without admission could not be treated as a standalone 'win' for Plaintiffs and Defendants' conduct justified not ordering immediate payment. Therefore the proper orders are Plaintiffs' costs in the cause for the Continuation Summons with certificate for two counsel, and costs of the Consent Summons to be costs in the cause, with a nisi order of no order as to costs in the costs disputes to be m…
20 Mar 2020

ESSILOR MANUFACTURING (THAILAND) CO., LTD v. WONG KAM WAI ( t/a SUN WAI LOK HK INTERNATIONAL CO) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 547
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA159/2020

The injunctions expired on the express return date of 7 February 2020 because no extension was sought before that date; GAP does not automatically prolong the life of an injunction and an ex parte injunction requires urgency or secrecy, thus the plaintiff must apply inter partes for new injunctions; costs for the opposing defendant who raised the point (D10) are payable by the plaintiff and to be summarily assessed.
22 Mar 2019

SERIDOM SERVICIOS INTEGRADOS IDOM S.A.U. v. HENG WEN TRADE CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 761
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1631/2017

The court varied the Costs Order Nisi and ordered D8 and D10 to forthwith pay P's costs of and occasioned by the Summons (and the Costs Summons) to be summarily assessed because (1) the incidence of costs in P's favour had already been determined by the Costs Order Nisi, (2) summary assessment was appropriate as D8 and D10 did not identify substantial grounds of dispute that could not be dealt with summarily, (3) the Summons was severable and self-contained and the quantum justified separate assessment, and (4) the objectives of the Civil Justice Reform and Practice Direction 14.3 militated i…
20 Jul 2018

BANCO DE CHILE v. BORUIDA TRADING CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1780
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1621/2018

The court found a strong prima facie case of sophisticated cyber fraud, the defendants were immediate recipients of the misappropriated funds, the documents sought were directly relevant and narrowly tailored to specified accounts and period, the banks were neutral and a protective clause prevented use of disclosed documents against the banks; balancing these factors and the risk of dissipation, the continuation of the injunction and the production order were justified and granted.
5 Feb 2015

RAMUKA TRADING PTE LTD v. AVA FASHION LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

RAMUKA TRADING PTE LTD v. AVA FASHION LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ72/2015

Because there was no change in circumstances and the reasons given in the court's earlier decision of 22 January 2015 remained valid, the court continued the interim injunction until judgment and ordered the 1st and 3rd defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a certificate for counsel.
15 Mar 2013

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG SHIU KEE AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEUNG SHIU KEE AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1208/2009

The injunction was continued because the 5th defendant failed to appear or pursue his application to discharge the injunction; failure to pursue the application justified refusal to discharge the order.
6 Mar 2009

YEN NING LING v. DESCARTES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

YEN NING LING v. DESCARTES INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA136/2009

The court found the defendant's CMT defence to be a late afterthought and the securities under the June Security Agreement to be effectively inadequate (One Silversea excluded and realistic realizable security approx HK$4m); material non-disclosure did not vitiate the ex parte order because the judge had been informed of the existence of securities and the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the bank indebtedness; accordingly the ex parte injunction should continue on revised terms and the defendant's summons (including request to discharge the injunction and for security for costs) was dismissed w…
2 Sept 2005

CHINA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. 北京明華軒投資諮詢有限公司

Citation

CHINA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD v. 北京明華軒投資諮詢有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA720/2005

The court found that as at the date of the statutory demand there was a bona fide dispute and an unresolved locus as to who was entitled to receive the payment; the plaintiff's disclosure to the ex parte judge was not materially deficient such as to have altered the outcome; the ex parte injunction was therefore properly continued (with drafting modification) and the action stayed pending arbitration, with costs to the plaintiff.
9 Nov 2001

ASIANET CORPORATION LTD. v. DOMINGO CHEN & OTHERS

Citation

ASIANET CORPORATION LTD. v. DOMINGO CHEN & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4728/2001

The court continued paragraph 2 of the ex parte order up to and including 21 November 2001 because, on the evidence before it (in particular para 17(d) of the affirmation of Jin Yang Jang) and without taking the alleged material non-disclosure into account, the balance of convenience favored continuation pending further hearing.
4 Jul 1984

GUCCI CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG KWOK PUN t/a KWOK HANG CO

Citation

GUCCI CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NG KWOK PUN t/a KWOK HANG CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1843/1984

The injunction was continued because the court found no deliberate or material lack of frankness in the ex parte affidavit, there were arguable issues to be tried on passing off and trade mark infringement, and the balance of convenience favored maintaining the injunction as plaintiffs risked harm to reputation that could not be adequately compensated by damages.