Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge of undertakings

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2023

LCFM formerly known as LCFM v. LSF

Citation

[2023] HKFC 121
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCJA2346/2018

H failed to establish any of the recognized grounds for discharge under L v C: there was no unforeseeable material change, the subject matters (the house and the credit cards) still existed, W had not released the undertakings, and there was no fraud/misrepresentation or mistake; the undertakings were voluntary and given in exchange for substantial consideration in the global settlement; therefore paragraphs 2, 3 and 9 of the amended summons were dismissed and costs awarded to W on a party-and-party basis with Certificate for Counsel.
12 Aug 2022

ST otherwise SST v. MFP

Citation

[2022] HKFC 168
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7467/2009

The husband\'s variation summons was dismissed because he failed to establish a material decline in his ability to pay and engaged in material non-disclosure; the court therefore made a modest upward variation for the wife to HK$137,000 per month (CPI-linked, backdated to June 2020) and ordered direct payments to H of HK$23,000 per month (CPI-linked) while upholding the respondent\'s undertakings relating to the education fund and school/university fees (recitals J and N) but discharging specified ancillary undertakings (recitals F, H, K and part of L); costs were awarded to reflect the respo…
29 Apr 2020

SEB v. ZX

Citation

[2020] HKFC 87
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14535/2005

Court accepted husband's evidence of material change (loss of employment from 2015, serious indebtedness, reduced assets and health problems) and rejected wife's evidence of needs as insufficient and inconsistent; accordingly varied spousal maintenance (HK$36,500/month for Jan–Dec 2014 and HK$10,000/month from Jan 2015), discharged the husband's undertakings and the child maintenance and holiday allowance with retrospective effect from 1 January 2011, and refused leave to enforce arrears exceeding 12 months prior to the wife's judgment summons filed 28 July 2015; costs awarded to husband.
23 Jan 2020

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KIN SUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA373/2014

Leave was granted to the 1st Defendant to withdraw two specific undertakings (not to exercise rights in relation to his 2,900 shares and not to challenge or change the registered company chop) because material changes and conduct (including failure to comply with Lisa Wong J's facilitative order and intervening PRC litigation that threatened the subsidiary) justified discharge in the court's discretion and the balance of convenience; however most other reliefs were refused because they either infringed the reflective loss principle, were overbroad, sought to usurp PRC courts, or were unnecess…
23 Jan 2020

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 256
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP632/2012

Court granted limited relief: restrained the Plaintiffs from representing that a subsisting Hong Kong injunction remained in force, and gave leave to the 1st Defendant to withdraw two specified undertakings (not to exercise rights in relation to his 2,900 shares and not to challenge the company chop); other reliefs were dismissed. The discharge was justified by material changes of circumstances (PRC litigation, litigation conduct and failure to comply with Lisa Wong J's order leading to risk to the subsidiary) and the balance of convenience to preserve the real fruit of the litigation, while…
3 Jul 2015

L v.C

Citation

L v.C
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5952/2012

On the balance of probabilities the wife concealed the 2007 incident; the husband did not know and could not reasonably have known he was not the biological father at the time of the Consent Order; that silence amounted to misrepresentation/mistake inducing the undertakings; therefore it was just to discharge the undertakings given to the court.
13 Mar 2012

HORST JOACHIM FRANZ GEICKE v. I-ONASIA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HORST JOACHIM FRANZ GEICKE v. I-ONASIA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2379/2009

The application was dismissed because the CCTV footage was inconclusive, the defendants (being in the surveillance business) should have known of and could have obtained the footage or sought an adjournment before giving their undertaking, there was no significant change of circumstances or newly discovered facts that could not have been discovered earlier, and the correspondence did not show abandonment by the plaintiff; accordingly the undertaking should not be discharged and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

Hong Kong Case Law

LCFM formerly known as LCFM v. LSF

ST otherwise SST v. MFP

SEB v. ZX

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. CHAN KIN SUN AND OTHERS

WANG LINPING AND ANOTHER v. HUANG KEQIN AND OTHERS

L v.C

HORST JOACHIM FRANZ GEICKE v. I-ONASIA LTD AND OTHERS