Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of injunction

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2024

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3523
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

The court exercised its case management discretion to permit the limited, responsive second expert affirmation (Lee 2) because the delay was materially caused by the parties' failure to fix an earlier hearing date, the affidavit was confined and responsive to the Lowe affidavit, and fairness required allowing CEG a right to reply; consequential costs orders were made against the party granted the indulgence (Ding).
4 Jun 2024

CONVOY COLLATERAL LTD v. CHO KWAI CHEE (also known as CHO KWAI CHEE ROY) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1510
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA399/2018

The court exercised its discretion to grant the variation because the Judgments are undisputed and predate the injunction, CCL (the plaintiff) consented, there is no overlapping question with the discharge summons, the variation removes uncertainty and protects the defendant from perceptions of preferential conduct, and no prejudice to CCL or other creditors was shown sufficient to refuse variation.
8 Jul 2022

ZIMMER ROHDE SRL v. ROCKSON INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2101
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA599/2022

The recorder exercised the court's discretion and concluded it was appropriate to discharge the proprietary and Mareva injunctions and allow the plaintiff to discontinue the action with no order as to costs because the defendant did not participate, the plaintiff had recovered a substantial portion (~60%) of the sums, and continuation was not commercially viable.
5 Jul 2022

RORY ANTHONY CAFFYN-PARSONS AND ANOTHER v. ASIA GRACE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1400/2021

The Judge was satisfied that service of the summons was properly effected and that Garnishee Orders absolute had been obtained and monies paid; accordingly the interlocutory injunctions were discharged as against the 5th, 7th and 11th Defendants and there was to be no order for costs.
21 Apr 2021

APITAL WEALTH HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS v. 南通嘉禾科技投资开发有限公司

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT66/2020

Where claimed costs for a one‑day substantive hearing are unreasonably high and contain duplications and unparticularized items, the court will summarily assess and reduce the claim to a reasonable global figure; unparticularized Mainland fees and excessive counsel and fee‑earner charges were disallowed or reduced, resulting in assessed costs of HK$2,000,000 and RMB400,000, payable within 28 days.
11 Feb 2021

LU YONGDE v. ALLAN YAP AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 474
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1501/2017

Defendants demonstrated performance of settlement obligations by documentary evidence; in absence of opposing evidence and given plaintiff's non-compliance, the court acceded to the defendants' summons to discharge the injunction as against the 8th defendant but exercised case management discretion to withhold making the formal discharge order pending the related injunctive application in HCA 212/2021; the formal order was made in terms of the defendants' summons with deletion of the words 'set aside and/or'.
28 Jan 2021

ZHAO ZHI QIANG v. ZHAO ZHIGUANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 248
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1614/2019

Leave to appeal refused because the 1st Defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on the grounds advanced; the application to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed on its merits (and would be dismissed even if made in time); costs of the Leave and Costs Summonses are to follow the event, be paid by the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff forthwith and be summarily assessed with a certificate for two counsel; procedural steps for summary assessment are ordered.
17 Mar 2020

PANG HO TONG v. PERSONS UNLAWFULLY AND WILFULLY ENTERING TRESPASSING OR REMAINING ON OR CAUSING DAMAGE TO OR HINDERING OR PREVENTING ACCESS TO OR INTERFERING WITH THE USE AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PORTION OF LAND SHADED IN RED AND YELLOW IN ANNEX 1 TO THE WRIT OF SUMMONS HEREIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 152
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6227/2019

The ex parte injunction was discharged because the applicant failed to justify the absence of notice or the required secrecy/urgency and failed to adduce adequately prepared ex parte evidence; however, because there was a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo, the court re‑granted an interlocutory injunction against both defendants in terms of the original order.
8 Oct 2019

XING FA (HONG KONG) IMP. & EXP. LTD v. SUNGSAN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2466
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2511/2018

The court dismissed all three summonses because the defendant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success for leave to appeal, the discharge/variation applications lacked merit and constituted forum shopping and abuse of process, and the plaintiff established justification for the injunction and the award of indemnity costs.
16 Aug 2019

AIG INSURANCE HONG KONG LTD v. LYNN MCCULLOUGH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2216/2018

The injunction was not discharged but was varied to be limited to the coverage issue; the plaintiff's failure to provide the transcript of the ex parte hearing constituted unreasonable conduct relevant to the costs decision, leading to an adverse costs outcome for the plaintiff.