Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delay in seeking interlocutory relief

Legal area

Court

2 May 2024

SINCERE BRAND MANAGEMENT LTD v. CORTINA WATCH HK LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1189
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA823/2023

The court declined to award indemnity costs because the circumstances did not justify departing from party and party costs under the principles in Town Planning Board v Society for Protection of the Harbour Ltd (No 2); however, because the costs of the Injunction Summonses and Withdrawal Summonses formed a discrete set, the court ordered those costs to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed, and to be paid forthwith.
6 Jul 2022

浙江大通輕紡有限公司 v. HE BIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1987
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA667/2019

On the evidence as a whole the Plaintiff failed to establish a solid basis for an objective finding of a real risk of unjustified dissipation: the sales and marketing conduct concerning the properties did not indicate a fire sale or deliberate dissipation, explanations for dispositions were plausible, doubts about the defendants' knowledge of other mainland judgments and the timing of migrations undermined the Plaintiff's inferences, and delay and surrounding circumstances did not convert the material into a sufficient risk of dissipation; accordingly the Mareva injunction application was dis…
8 Jul 2015

WONGS INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS GROUP LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHINA KINGSTONE MINING HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

WONGS INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS GROUP LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHINA KINGSTONE MINING HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1472/2015

Petitioner failed to adduce sufficient evidence that the directors acted for an improper purpose or that the petitioner could not subscribe for the offer shares; the application was brought too late and would disrupt third party and market expectations; allegations of bad faith and stratagem were not proved to the standard required for interlocutory relief; accordingly the interim injunction was refused and costs ordered against the petitioner.
28 Mar 2003

YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HNG AND OTHERS

Citation

YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2423/2002

Although there was a serious issue to be tried on unfair prejudice and the validity of the sale, the summons for interim receivership was dismissed because the applicant (1) delayed unreasonably after the change of management, (2) failed to demonstrate any real or imminent risk of dissipation supported by evidence, (3) failed to plead alleged fraud with requisite particularity, (4) did not show receivership would be effective given practical and mainland legal obstacles and impending trial, and (5) demonstrated that receivership would cause disproportionate prejudice to respondents and distur…
20 Nov 1984

YIP WAI HONG v. LEE SEE WOO

Citation

YIP WAI HONG v. LEE SEE WOO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9173/1981

The appeal was dismissed because the proposed interrogatories were not material or relevant to the pleaded issue (which was whether the shares were validly transferred in accordance with the agreement) and because there had been inordinate delay in seeking leave to serve the interrogatories; the authority in Duke of Sutherland was applied.

Hong Kong Case Law

SINCERE BRAND MANAGEMENT LTD v. CORTINA WATCH HK LTD AND OTHERS

浙江大通輕紡有限公司 v. HE BIN AND ANOTHER

WONGS INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS GROUP LTD (In Liquidation) v. CHINA KINGSTONE MINING HOLDINGS LTD

YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HNG AND OTHERS

YIP WAI HONG v. LEE SEE WOO