Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-undertaking as to damages

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2025

CHOW WING MAN v. AU TZE PUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 357
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1830/2022

The injunction was discharged because the plaintiff breached his undertaking by dissipating the HK$1.1M held on trust for MBG and thereafter participated in conduct (assisting a rival business) that constituted a significant change of circumstances and rendered equitable relief inappropriate given his unclean hands; alleged material non-disclosures were unproven and the defendants’ non-attendance at the earlier hearing did not preclude this relief being discharged now.
31 May 2023

LAU LAI SHAN LISA v. ZHANG QI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1992/2019

The summons for fortification was dismissed because the 1st Defendant failed to establish a significant change of circumstances warranting the late application (consolidation did not materially increase delay or costs and the alleged property market downturn did not demonstrate a real reduction in the plaintiff's security) and, on the merits of the ordinary test, the 1st Defendant did not prove or adequately quantify the likelihood of significant loss nor show that the plaintiff would be unable to make good such loss; therefore fortification was not just and proper.
18 Jun 2021

MUHAMMAD DEEB ABD ALRAZZAQ AY TOUGHLU v. BUSINESS CENTER TRADE CO., LTD

Citation

[2021] HKDC 730
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4225/2020

The default judgment was set aside because the defendant demonstrated inadvertent non‑receipt of process, took timely steps after learning of the judgment, and, critically, produced credible documentary evidence (SPA, bank statements and payment records) showing a real prospect of success on the defence that the sums were paid under a genuine contract or that the defendant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly exercise of discretion required setting aside the default and allowing the substantive dispute to be litigated.
27 Mar 2019

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 814
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2012

The court confirmed that compensation for loss caused by a wrongly granted Mareva injunction is to be assessed by reference to causation and remoteness principles and that the appropriate remedy for defendants is enforcement of the cross‑undertaking in the original proceedings; an inquiry into such damages can properly be referred to and heard by a Master.
3 Jul 2018

IP PUI LAM ARTHUR AND ANOTHER v. HO YUK WAH DAVID (a bankrupt) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1528
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2587/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because Grassmere failed to show reasonable prospects that the appellate court would find the judge's exercise of discretion plainly wrong or erroneous in law; the injunction was properly re-granted despite material non-disclosure given the bona fide proprietary claim and lack of demonstrated prejudice; late evidence was unlikely to be admitted on appeal; immediate taxation and payment of costs in respect of the Discharge Summons was ordered to reflect responsibility in ex-parte applications.
14 May 2013

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSIT WING (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. TWG TEA COMPANY PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2210/2011

The court refused to determine the defendants' application and adjourned it sine die with liberty to restore because (1) the Undertaking was given to the Court of Appeal and the proper forum to determine whether a cross‑undertaking should be imposed is the Court of Appeal (raising functus officio and jurisdictional issues), (2) cross‑undertakings cannot be imposed retrospectively, and (3) it is premature and potentially academic to decide the issue before the trial adjudication.
29 Jan 2013

DAIMLER AG v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND OTHERS

Citation

DAIMLER AG v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/2013

Appeal allowed: where uncontradicted medical evidence establishes that travel would be life‑threatening, a judge must not speculate about hypothetical travel arrangements; the balance of prejudice favors permitting the witness to give evidence by video link and any disadvantages (perjury sanction, cross‑examination impact) are matters for weight assessment at trial, not a bar to the use of video link.
23 Jun 2011

WINGAMES INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MASCOT LAND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WINGAMES INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. MASCOT LAND LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA907/2011

The court granted/continued the interim injunction because the plaintiffs demonstrated sufficient merits and, given the defendants' refusal to disclose transactional details, the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo; fortification of the cross-undertaking was unnecessary because funds were deposited in escrow; the 1st defendant's payment-into-court application was dismissed as unnecessary.
25 Jul 2008

INTRALINE RESOURCES SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUA TIAN LONG"

Citation

INTRALINE RESOURCES SDN BHD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HUA TIAN LONG"
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/2008

The Court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the questions sought a change to established Admiralty law and practice and were not matters this court should certify as of general or public importance; the Court also varied the order as to costs to 'no order as to costs', depriving the plaintiffs of their costs because of their adducing new evidence and a clarified case on appeal.
4 Mar 2008

SUPER LION ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION

Citation

SUPER LION ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS v. THE COMMISSIONER OF RATING AND VALUATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV105/2006

Appeal allowed; interlocutory stays must be accompanied by the usual cross-undertaking as to damages in standard form and the court should not prescribe in advance the basis or specific interest rate for assessing damages because the true loss to the respondent can only be determined at enquiry; the lower court's specification of HIBID and reasoning based on Government borrowing cost were unjustified; an order nisi for costs in favour of the Commissioner was made.