Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay and urgency

Legal area

Court

27 Mar 2026

HONG KONG TOPKEY LTD v. WINTAC (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 496
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP260/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to show a real risk of dissipation of the shares (now vested in trustees), the plaintiff was an unsecured creditor with no proprietary interest, and the plaintiff's prolonged and inexcusable delay and failure to prosecute the underlying proceedings made the intended appeal without reasonable prospect of success.
14 Jan 2011

LAM SIK YING v. LAM SIK SHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM SIK YING v. LAM SIK SHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4713/2001

On the evidence the plaintiff established a good arguable case that the 1st defendant owed duties to account and there was an objective real risk that, once he received his share of sale proceeds and given his residence outside Hong Kong, he could dissipate assets; balancing convenience and quantum, the court granted a Mareva injunction restraining dissipation up to HK$2,500,000 subject to plaintiff's undertaking as to damages and usual liberties for living and legal expenses, and declined to order disclosure.
7 May 1999

LO CHUN NIN EDDY v. TAM YIU CHI

Citation

LO CHUN NIN EDDY v. TAM YIU CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20869/1998

The application for a mandatory interlocutory injunction was refused because, although there was a serious question to be tried, the balance of convenience favored the defendant who had paid a substantial deposit and occupied the premises as home, damages (and the deposit) adequately protected the plaintiff, the plaintiff had unexplained delay negating urgency, and the high threshold for mandatory interim relief was not met.

Hong Kong Case Law

HONG KONG TOPKEY LTD v. WINTAC (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

LAM SIK YING v. LAM SIK SHI AND ANOTHER

LO CHUN NIN EDDY v. TAM YIU CHI