Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of judgment

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2025

LIU KA LOK CAROL v. PUN LAI YIN STELLA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6336
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP689/2024

Extension of time refused because the applicant's 35-day delay was substantial and inexcusable, the explanations were unsupported or unsatisfactory, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on appeal given that she was not substituted into the 2019 judgment, was bound by prior counsel's conduct, and defendants relied on over 12 years adverse possession; costs ordered against applicant.
9 Dec 2025

CHOI KING HUNG v. FUNG SHING CHUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5938
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD41/2025

Applicant failed to establish any ground under BR r 48(5): jointly owned properties realistically assignable nil value for Applicant's debt; unsold shares value insufficient; amended SD correctly credited realized proceeds so not overstated; appeal lacked merit to constitute a substantial dispute; mediation is not a basis to set aside. Accordingly the amended statutory demand stands and the application is dismissed with authorization to present a bankruptcy petition after 23 December 2025.
3 Dec 2025

有關林鎮星的事宜

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5933
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB6547/2024

The application for permission to appeal out of time is refused because the applicant's delay of 101 days lacked a reasonable explanation (medical records and grief inadequate and inconsistent with attendance at the hearing), reliance on the Judicial Administration's handling of his complaints was irrelevant to the statutory appeal period, and the proposed grounds of appeal have no real prospect of success in light of prior adjudications and the high evidential threshold required to impugn judgments obtained after full consideration.
7 Mar 2025

李汶禧對楊美芳

Citation

[2025] HKDC 389
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1310/2021

D1 failed to identify any arguable error in the earlier judgment or rebut the trial judge's reasons, and therefore did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other compelling reason of justice; accordingly leave to appeal and the application to vary the interim costs order are refused and the summonses dismissed.
21 Oct 2024

OLDHAM, LI & NIE, SOLICITORS (A FIRM) v. MELVIN WAXMAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2963
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA263/2023

The court granted the plaintiff's application: it ordered the 1st defendant to produce specified financial and board/shareholder documents relating to WDI within 21 days; if the 1st defendant failed to comply, WDI was ordered to produce the documents within 21 days thereafter; costs orders were made against the plaintiff (to pay WDI costs of the application) and against the 1st defendant (to pay the plaintiff's costs).
12 Jul 2024

HO WAI KWONG , executor of the estate of YU KING, deceased v. HO KAM CHUI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1844
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1224/2016

Defendant failed to show an arguable appeal or a real risk that non‑granting of a stay would render the appeal nugatory and the trial judge's factual findings were not plainly wrong; therefore the stay and leave to appeal were refused and the s25A enforcement application was granted subject to an undertaking from the Plaintiff.
21 Jun 2023

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD 及另三人

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2275/2019

The applications were dismissed because the second defendant lacked legal standing to represent the first defendant in relation to the amended judgment, the applications to restrain or stay enforcement pending production of title documents had no legal basis and amounted to abuse of process, and the court had no jurisdiction or reason to set aside orders where appeals had been withdrawn; accordingly all four summons were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
7 Mar 2023

RE XIWANG INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 713
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW30/2021

The Consent Order must be construed commercially in light of the Standstill Agreement; para 2's 'liberty to restore' is open-ended and may be invoked by either party on good cause, including where clause 2.4 of the Standstill Agreement automatically cancels the standstill on default. Therefore the Petitioner is entitled to restore the winding-up petition immediately upon the Company's default and the court so ruled.
23 Dec 2022

TRILLION WIDE CREDIT FINANCE LTD v. AMPLE SKY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA288/2019

The plaintiff proved execution of the two loan agreements, receipt and non‑repayment of the loans; the defendant produced no evidence to rebut; alleged MLO non‑compliances were either inapplicable, not shown to cause prejudice, or did not invalidate the agreements (and the 2nd loan fell outside MLO as a bona fide property purchase loan); the 2nd Loan Agreement evidenced an intention to create an immediate equitable interest and was registrable; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the originating summons dismissed.
26 Aug 2022

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2638
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1987/2005

The court granted the anti-suit injunction because the Xi'an Proceedings plainly sought to relitigate and overturn issues conclusively determined by final Hong Kong judgments; the Xi'an Proceedings were instituted in bad faith and are an abuse of process; the JV Agreement contains an exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clause and the dispute has its closest connection with Hong Kong; the foreign proceedings were at an embryonic stage and there were no compelling reasons to refuse an injunction; consequential costs and ancillary directions were appropriate.