Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of injunctions

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2016

XY, LLC v. JESSE ZHU (a.k.a. JIA-BEI ZHU and JESSE JIA-BEI ZHU) AND ANOTHER

Citation

XY, LLC v. JESSE ZHU (a.k.a. JIA-BEI ZHU and JESSE JIA-BEI ZHU) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/2016

The court held there was sufficient admissible evidence from which a good arguable case could be drawn that the funds in GNT's Hong Kong account were beneficially held for Jesse Zhu and that there was a real risk of dissipation; consequently the Chabra jurisdiction was engaged and the judge did not err in refusing to discharge the Mareva injunction; appeal dismissed.
28 Aug 2015

SBC CPA LTD v. AU KA MAN SILKIE AND OTHERS

Citation

SBC CPA LTD v. AU KA MAN SILKIE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1502/2014

The court found the plaintiff misrepresented the nature and scope of the Chan Order by publishing the memo and client notice (which conveyed that the court had approved the injunction and that defendants had given a general undertaking not to contact clients) and that this misrepresentation prejudiced the defendants; despite this misuse of the court's process the appropriate remedy was not discharge of the Orders but an adverse costs order against the plaintiff and continuation of the New Undertakings until trial or further order.
23 Aug 2012

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD

Citation

SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1313/2012

Because the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure of material facts at the ex parte hearing and did not establish sufficient urgency to justify ex parte relief, the ex parte injunction and the subsequent inter partes injunction should have been discharged; accordingly the plaintiff must pay the costs of and occasioned by those orders to the defendant, to be taxed if not agreed.
18 Feb 2011

LO MEI KIN STELLA v. LO MEI KIN STELLA

Citation

LO MEI KIN STELLA v. LO MEI KIN STELLA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2682/2008

Because the matters relied on to justify discharge of the interlocutory injunctions were identical to central issues at the substantive trial and would require credibility findings and witness evidence that would prejudice the trial and risk inconsistent findings or duplication, the court refused to bring forward the hearing or have it heard by another judge and ordered the application to be heard together with the trial after a short adjournment.
10 Mar 2009

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. WONG LEI KWAN JOANNE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA665/2009

Because the Defendant was outside the jurisdiction, unwilling to submit to Hong Kong proceedings, and there was a real risk that assets would be removed to frustrate enforcement of any judgment, the court was satisfied the test for a Mareva injunction was met and therefore granted a freezing order while discharging earlier injunctions.
3 Mar 1994

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

Citation

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV14/1994

The Court held that the March trial dates were too close for the defendants to prepare fairly; balancing prejudice favoured adjournment. Accordingly the March dates were vacated and refixed to 10 October 1994 and the parts of the judge's orders that adjourned the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions to the trial were set aside so that defendants could apply to the judge to seek discharge in light of the changed circumstances.
3 Mar 1994

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

Citation

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/1994

The Court concluded the trial date fixed for 14 March 1994 was unreasonably short and would likely deny the defendants a fair trial; accordingly the March trial dates were vacated and refixed to commence 10 October 1994, and the parts of the judge's orders that adjourned the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions to the trial were set aside so the defendants could renew those applications in light of the delay.
3 Mar 1994

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

Citation

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP426/1994

The Court vacated the March trial dates and refixed trial to commence 10 October 1994 because, on the evidence and in all the circumstances, the defendants could not be ready to try the actions in mid‑March and the balance of prejudice favored adjournment to secure a fair trial; further, parts of the judge's orders that adjourned the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions were set aside because a substantial delay constituted a material change in circumstances and defendants must be free to apply afresh to discharge or vary the injunctions.