Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex parte disclosure duty

Legal area

Court

12 Feb 2025

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

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 689
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

The court held that the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction should be continued: CEG established a good arguable case of serious misstatements in the consolidated financial statements and of breaches of directors' duties by Xia, there was insufficient assets within Hong Kong to satisfy potential judgment, and a real risk of dissipation existed; alleged procedural defects (lack of prior notice and asserted non-disclosure) were either justified by urgency or not materially prejudicial and did not warrant discharge; the CSRC Decision could not be relied on for its findings but the Liquidators'…
21 Jul 2023

ZHANG RUI KANG AND ANOTHER v. TUNGHSU GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1866
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1391/2021

Two separable determinations: (1) HCA 1391/2021 (enforcement of NY judgment) — Company’s summons to set aside Master's leave was dismissed; court found plaintiffs showed a real prospect of legitimate benefit from service out (connections to Hong Kong, prospect of locating assets and using Hong Kong enforcement tools) and no material non-disclosure fatal to the ex parte application. (2) HCA 1359/2021 (claims against Company and directors) — defendants' summons allowed; leave granted by Master to serve out was set aside because P3-P6 plainly lack locus to sue under the Indenture, plaintiffs' di…
23 Apr 2021

CLSA PREMIUM LTD (formerly known as KVB KUNLUN FINANCIAL GROUP LTD) AND OTHERS v. BANCLOGIX SYSTEM CO., LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1102
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1416/2019

The court concluded there is a serious issue to be tried as to whether implied contractual duties required the defendant to preserve and give access to the Plaintiffs' Data; damages would be inadequate because of risk of irretrievable loss and regulatory harm; balance of convenience favors preserving the status quo by renewing the defendant's undertakings until trial; alleged ex parte nondisclosures were innocent and do not bar relief; accordingly injunctive relief in the form of renewed undertakings should continue and the defendant's summons is dismissed.
31 Oct 2019

MGB also known as MAG v. GCB

Citation

[2019] HKFC 277
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5376/2015

The court found that the AR Judgment of 19 June 2017 effected a final settlement of the Wife's maintenance by lump sums and capitalised payments; therefore the MPS ceased on that date, no judgment debt arose for the period to Decree Absolute, and the garnishee proceedings could not be sustained; the sum paid into court was ordered released to the Husband and costs were to follow the event in his favour.
9 Nov 2018

MIRADRY, INC v. LI HAOJIAN (also known as COACH LI)

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1143/2018

Having reviewed the evidential material put before the court, the judge was satisfied there was plainly a good arguable case against each defendant of a coordinated scheme involving illicit stockpiling, misuse of distributorship arrangements and breaches of employment non-compete/loyalty obligations and that the ex parte Mareva injunctions should be continued; alleged omissions did not, on the material presented, justify discharging the orders.
20 Jun 2018

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (In liquidation) v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1395
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2448/2014

The court set aside the Master’s ex parte Extension Order because the Liquidators materially misrepresented and failed to disclose the true limitation position to the Master (a central misrepresentation) and thus the Extension Order could not stand or be re-granted; Harris J’s judgment removed the principal bases relied upon and, on the related but separate application, service was invalid (not at registered office and postal service was after expiry), so the writ was not effectually served and the action was dismissed with costs to the defendant and personal liability of the Liquidators for…
17 Aug 2012

HOPTAI SHARKFINS CO LTD v. PRODUCTOS PESQUEROS GALLEGOS, S.L.

Citation

HOPTAI SHARKFINS CO LTD v. PRODUCTOS PESQUEROS GALLEGOS, S.L.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1283/2012

The ex parte Mareva injunction was discharged for material non-disclosure of a possible defence (alleged computer hacking) which the applicant should have revealed; however, on application of the American Cyanamid test the court found a serious question to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured a limited interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from dealing with the goods stored in Hong Kong, with liberty to sell and pay proceeds into court pending trial.
28 May 2012

RE YEUNG KA-SING CARSON AND OTHERS

Citation

RE YEUNG KA-SING CARSON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2595/2011

The appeal is dismissed because (1) the non-production of the expert report in the ex parte affidavit was not material: the affidavit adequately summarised the expert's opinions and the report did not undermine the prosecution's case; (2) imposing a cap was premature and inappropriate given the possibility of additional assets, contributions and accretions increasing the quantifyable benefit at confiscation proceedings; and (3) the learned judge's reasons, considered in context of extensive written and oral submissions, were adequate and the respondents suffered no prejudice.
29 Dec 2006

TV PRODUCTS (HK) LTD v. KALYANARAMAN TIRUVILWAMALA RAMACHANDRAN

Citation

TV PRODUCTS (HK) LTD v. KALYANARAMAN TIRUVILWAMALA RAMACHANDRAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2438/2006

The application to discharge the ex parte Mareva and Anton Piller orders was dismissed because the court found the plaintiff's disclosure was sufficiently full and balanced; the alleged omissions were not material in the context of the evidence presented, the HK$3,000,000 estimate was reasonable, and there was adequate evidence of risk of dissipation and of potential misuse/destruction of confidential material to justify continuation of the injunctions.
24 Aug 2004

YUE WAH CHUK RICHARD AND ANOTHER v. MCKEON BRENDAN HUGH

Citation

YUE WAH CHUK RICHARD AND ANOTHER v. MCKEON BRENDAN HUGH
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7088/2003

Default judgment was set aside because the defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success: the original tenancy was terminated by valid notice and no binding new tenancy at $33,000 was proved; however the defendant's deliberate default, delay and conduct (withdrawing funds) justified conditional leave only. The court granted conditional leave to defend subject to payment into Court HKD 80,000 within 14 days, ordered costs against the defendant, discharged the First Prohibition Order for material non‑disclosure in the ex‑parte application, and dismissed the appeal against the Second Prohibi…