Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ex parte non‑disclosure

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2023

ZHANG RUI KANG AND OTHERS v. TUNGHSU GROUP CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1359/2021

The court ordered that costs of the Company’s Summons follow the event and be paid by the Company to Z&L with a certificate for three counsel, taxed if not agreed; defendants' summons costs are payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants with a certificate for three counsel, taxed if not agreed; indemnity costs were refused because the court did not find deliberation in the non-disclosures; costs of the paper disposal exercise are ordered to be no order as to costs; time for taxation is apportioned 25% to the Company’s Summons and 75% to the defendants' summons.
12 Mar 2021

ISRAEL SORIN (IZZY) SHOHAT v. BALRAM CHAINRAI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 655
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT9/2016

The court refused the interim stay and refused to set aside the examination orders because the Award was valid and enforceable, there had been no material non-disclosure in the ex parte application as to matters relevant to the grant of examination orders, any delay in service caused no prejudice, and there were no very special circumstances justifying a stay of enforcement pending HCA 1462.
24 Jun 2019

FANTASTIC STATE LTD v. TIEN’S ORGANIC FARM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 687
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV77/2019

The Court held that omission of the approval clause in Special Condition 30(a) and misleading evidence about connection and historical vehicular use were material non-disclosures which were not satisfactorily explained; on the available evidence the defendants had not shown a serious issue to be tried either on express grant under Condition 30(a) or on prescription for vehicular access; exercising its discretion afresh the Court discharged the interlocutory injunction and awarded costs nisi to the plaintiff.
28 Oct 2016

WU RONG ZHAO v. CLARISSA OR AND ANOTHER

Citation

WU RONG ZHAO v. CLARISSA OR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2556/2016

The ex parte injunction was discharged because the plaintiff had no proprietary interest in the company’s property, the applicant was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, the plaintiff by demanding return of deposits had treated the provisional agreement as ended (leaving damages as the adequate remedy), and there was material non-disclosure in the ex parte application; accordingly the balance of convenience did not favour continuing the injunction.
28 Sept 2016

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS

Citation

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/2015

Appeal allowed because plaintiff failed to establish the necessary quantum to support a US$54,000,000 freezing injunction given his possession of jewellery pledged as security (receipts recorded value >RMB790,000,000) and failure to produce valuation evidence; on that basis no fresh injunction should have been granted notwithstanding findings on non-disclosure or disputed liability.
9 Dec 2015

SUNEASY LTD t/a TAIPAN MANAGEMENT CO v. SUYONG DESIGNS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUNEASY LTD t/a TAIPAN MANAGEMENT CO v. SUYONG DESIGNS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT2518/2015

No material non-disclosure was made in the ex parte applications; the tenancy clause 4(a) validly permits suspension of the HK$9,000 discount so the plaintiff was entitled to claim HK$54,000 while the tenant was in arrears; bailiffs complied with s.91 by making prior visits and obtaining court authority to break in; therefore the applications to set aside the warrants were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
18 Apr 2012

XU SHENGHENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG KWAN

Citation

XU SHENGHENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA291/2009

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the court held that DI notices should be filed only when there is a presently exercisable interest in shares and that the applicant's contention that executory/contingent contracts require immediate DI filing was incorrect and could mislead; accordingly the appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success under section 14AA HCO.
2 Apr 2012

KIM LUNG TRANSPORTATION CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. IP MAN FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

KIM LUNG TRANSPORTATION CO (a firm) AND OTHERS v. IP MAN FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA271/2012

The Anton Piller order was discharged because the plaintiffs materially non-disclosed the 6th plaintiff's involvement in competing air‑freight businesses (Skytrans Express and East Express), facts that were critical to assessing both the likelihood of destruction of evidence and the proportionality of the order; that non-disclosure justified setting aside the ex parte order and no re‑granting was appropriate on the evidence before the court.
31 Jan 2012

SUNEASY LTD t/a TAIPAN MANAGEMENT CO v. HIROHITO HAYASHI

Citation

SUNEASY LTD t/a TAIPAN MANAGEMENT CO v. HIROHITO HAYASHI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT4162/2011

Judge found on comparison of signatures and surrounding evidence that the defendant had not signed the written tenancy, there was no evidence of actual or apparent authority for Catherine Tan to sign for the defendant, and a serious dispute existed as to the amount of rent; therefore the distress warrant was improperly obtained and must be discharged and costs awarded against the plaintiff.
11 Oct 2010

DONG SHIN F&T CO LTD v. HANMEC CO LTD

Citation

DONG SHIN F&T CO LTD v. HANMEC CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP107/2010

Leave granted ex parte to serve out was set aside because the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts (the December 2008 Stock Sale Contract and the receipt of full payment under it) that were directly relevant to whether a good arguable case and a serious issue to be tried in tort existed; uncontested Korean law evidence showed the December 2008 contract and payment disposed of the plaintiff's interest, undermining the tort claim and the case for Hong Kong jurisdiction, so the ex parte order must be discharged.