Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery up of property

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2019

TRENDS TRADE HONG KONG LTD v. ARTUR SHEVCHENKO

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP194/2019

The application for committal is dismissed because the court cannot make findings of punishable contempt for breaches occurring before a penal notice was endorsed, and the materials do not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant committed contempt after endorsement; deficiencies in evidence and the availability of alternative remedies (specific discovery and trial) make committal inappropriate.
11 Oct 2019

RE CHAN JOHN LOONG FAI

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6991/2017

Before ordering production under section 29 the court requires a prima facie showing that the respondent can provide the documents or information sought and must balance that need against the risk of a fishing expedition by assessing proportionality and costs; only where that balance favors disclosure should a compulsory production order issue under s29.
14 Oct 2016

JESSOP & BAIRD (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEO HWEE KHIM AND OTHERS

Citation

JESSOP & BAIRD (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEO HWEE KHIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2572/2016

The mandatory injunction was continued because the plaintiff provided persuasive evidence that the contested property belonged to it and was held at D5, D3 demonstrated control over D5 by his communications and conduct, and damages were inadequate given the risk to orders and goodwill; therefore the high standard for granting an interim mandatory injunction was met.
25 Aug 2014

CORBIERE LTD AND OTHERS v. KE XU

Citation

CORBIERE LTD AND OTHERS v. KE XU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1962/2014

The Hong Kong court, exercising its power under s21M and s21N as ancillary to English proceedings, granted limited interim relief ordering delivery of the identified Subject Items to an Independent Solicitor for safekeeping and permitting forensic examination authority, because the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs and the orders would facilitate the English proceedings; issues of privilege against self-incrimination are to be addressed by the English court.
27 Jul 2011

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. TAN SOON GIN GEORGE

Citation

LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG v. TAN SOON GIN GEORGE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2576/2005

The applicant failed to establish good reasons for a stay: the appeal did not show strong prospects of success on credibility-based findings, and the applicant failed to prove an appreciable risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory since the respondent's sworn evidence of assets and collection was not sufficiently impugned; accordingly the stay and interim stay were refused and the funds paid into court were ordered released to the successful party with costs against the applicant.
6 May 2011

IAN HUNG WAI v. CHEUNG SAU KUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

IAN HUNG WAI v. CHEUNG SAU KUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV210/2010

The trial judge found on the evidence that there was no mutual commitment to marry and that the transfers were absolute gifts given out of love; loans and ring were not proved. The appellate court upheld those primary findings because the judge assessed the evidence as a whole, made permissible credibility evaluations, and there was no basis to conclude the findings were plainly wrong; therefore the gifts were not returnable and the claims for loans and ring failed.
2 Feb 1999

WILLIAM HENRY OVERHOLT v. MONINA ACAB OVERHOLT

Citation

WILLIAM HENRY OVERHOLT v. MONINA ACAB OVERHOLT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2624/1997

Amendment to the statement of claim is permitted because the defendant was aware of the claim and will not be taken by surprise and because the particulars provided are sufficient to enable a defence, except that para 13(1) is embarrassingly vague and must be excluded; issues of precise specification for any delivery up order can be resolved at trial; costs of and occasioned by the amendment are awarded to the defendant.
25 Nov 1985

FUNNY ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED v. WORLD ASIA PLASTICS DIE-CASTING MOULD FACTORY (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

FUNNY ELECTRONICS COMPANY LIMITED v. WORLD ASIA PLASTICS DIE-CASTING MOULD FACTORY (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA790/1985

The court dismissed the committal application because the penal notice served on the director was defective and failed to satisfy the explicit requirements of Order 45 rules 7(3)&(4); given the strict construction of penal notices that defect was fatal to enforcement by committal notwithstanding other factual inferences about the respondent's ability to comply.