Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery up

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2026

YVES CHARLES EDGAR BOUVIER v. PASCAL MARIE MICHAEL DE SARTHE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1253
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1822/2025

The court refused to discharge or stay the Disclosure Undertaking because maintaining the Preservation Undertaking and enforcing it by disclosure was necessary in the absence of a demonstration that Plaintiff had no serious issue to be tried and no clear legal impediment to compliance; consequently disclosure was ordered by a fixed date, substantive issues were adjourned for a 3‑hour hearing, the SOC filing was extended on an unless basis and retrospective leave to file the late reply affirmation was granted with a timetable for responses.
7 Oct 2022

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. SINGAPORE MEDICINE CO. 星洲藥業 (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3108
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA595/2014

The court upheld broad injunctive terms in favour of the plaintiff because passing-off was established and protection must cover goods represented as those of or associated/licensed by the plaintiff including specified Chinese designations; disclosure and discovery orders were justified as necessary to quantify remedies and trace infringing activity and should not be deferred pending appeal absent a stay.
8 Apr 2021

CHINA INNOVATION INVESTMENT LTD v. TANG XIAOSHUANG

Citation

[2021] HKDC 420
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6683/2019

The defendant failed to raise any triable issue to resist summary judgment because his only defence—an offer to make a statutory declaration of no intention to retain, use or disclose confidential information—is self-serving and cannot substitute for a final injunction and delivery up order; therefore summary judgment is appropriate and limited injunctive and delivery up relief must be granted with clear particularisation of the confidential information.
26 Feb 2021

HOROMETRIE S.A AND ANOTHER v. BONHAMS (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 458
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA875/2019

The court held that (1) plaintiffs must pay the 1st Defendant's costs of the Norwich Pharmacal application on an indemnity basis but plaintiffs' costs of that application are in the cause and plaintiffs may seek to recover those costs from D2 at trial if they succeed because D2 would be a wrongdoer if plaintiffs establish title; and (2) the Delivery Up Application was necessitated by the 1st Defendant's refusal to provide undertakings to preserve the watch and accordingly the 1st Defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs of the Delivery Up Application on a party and party basis.
26 Feb 2021

KARIBU BABY LTD v. J SOLUTION INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 465
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1674/2019

Karibu failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injunction with penal notice had been personally served on Lau or that the strict test for dispensing with personal service was met; absent personal service on the relevant officer, committal under Order 45 could not be ordered against J Solution or Lau, so the originating summons for committal must be dismissed.
30 Jan 2018

MORN CREATIONS LTD v. SWIRE RESOURCES LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1578/2017

The strike-out application was dismissed because the differences relied on by the Defendant were not so significant as to make the case clear and straightforward; evidence existed that the Defendant collected imported products and offered them for sale such that it was not plain and obvious there was no issuance to the public; the Defendant's bare denial of requisite knowledge did not establish as a matter of law that knowledge was absent; and the undertaking to remove stock did not make injunctive relief plainly unnecessary.
23 Mar 2017

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. KIN LAM MEDICINE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. KIN LAM MEDICINE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2472/2016

The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had proper notice of the prior judgments and wilfully failed to comply with them with knowledge of their contents; accordingly each of the companies (1st–3rd respondents) was in contempt and the director (4th respondent) was personally in contempt and liable under Order 45, rule 5(1)(b)(iii), warranting fines for the companies and imprisonment for the director.
29 Sept 2016

MORN CREATIONS LTD v. GAP LTD

Citation

MORN CREATIONS LTD v. GAP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1882/2014

On default Gap is taken to have admitted MCL's copyright and Gap's infringement; the Letter of Undertaking was neither clear nor prompt and was given too late and drafted to reserve non‑admission, therefore it did not displace the prima facie entitlement to injunctive relief; given Gap's failure to substantiate assertions and refusal to identify supplier, disclosure orders are proportionate and necessary; accordingly permanent injunctions, disclosure, and costs orders were made and MCL retains liberty to elect between damages inquiry or account of profits.
29 Jan 2016

LO LI LI LILY v. LUI FUNG HE

Citation

LO LI LI LILY v. LUI FUNG HE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP3/2010

The court entered judgment on the defendant's counterclaim because the plaintiff had unequivocally admitted the counterclaims in two written letters made in compliance with the court's directions, she failed to make the required application by summons and affidavit to withdraw those admissions despite ample time, and permitting her to resile would cause prejudice and delay to the defendant.
6 Oct 2015

KARIBU BABY LTD v. GLOBAL YIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a COUPPIE

Citation

KARIBU BABY LTD v. GLOBAL YIELD INTERNATIONAL LTD t/a COUPPIE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1765/2014

No triable defence existed: patent infringement established and cannot be defended by belated reliance on s81(1); copyright infringement established as secondary infringement because the defendant marketed a product that was a copy and had constructive if not actual knowledge given inadequate due diligence and omitted evidence; accordingly summary judgment entered for plaintiff with injunctions and ancillary relief and indemnity costs from 31 May 2015.