Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Execution and seizure

Legal area

Court

24 Nov 2017

LINCOLN (H.K.) LTD v. KHAN, MOHAMED AFZAL

Citation

LINCOLN (H.K.) LTD v. KHAN, MOHAMED AFZAL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCDT2042/2017

Even assuming arguendo the five‑day time limit issue could be contested, the defendant's factual case fails because the alleged oral variations were made with a person who had no evidence of authority to bind the plaintiff; therefore the defendant remained liable under the written tenancy agreement, the warrant was validly issued and must not be discharged.
21 May 2003

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD

Citation

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2054/2003

The ex parte injunction was properly discharged because the stocks seized were assets of the defendant and the applicant had no proprietary trust claim; the time limit under Order 59 rule 4 for setting down the appeal had expired and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success, therefore leave to set down the appeal out of time was refused and the application dismissed to avoid further wasted costs.
20 Dec 1985

THE KA WAH BANK LIMITED v. D.W.J. OOSTERVELD

Citation

THE KA WAH BANK LIMITED v. D.W.J. OOSTERVELD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB378/1985

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the judgment debtor failed to demonstrate a genuine triable claim; the alleged counterclaim was unrealistic, unsupported by evidence and did not qualify as an enforceable action sufficient to defeat the bankruptcy notice; accordingly the notice stands and the court ordered costs and a conditional declaration of act of bankruptcy if the debt is not paid within seven days.
12 Dec 1984

RE LOK SHUN t/a MEI SUN WEAVING FACTORY

Citation

RE LOK SHUN t/a MEI SUN WEAVING FACTORY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB422/1984

Execution and sale on 9 August 1984 constituted an act of bankruptcy; the 15% rule under Section 9(3) is excluded because preferential claims exist; the debtor admitted indebtedness and despite credibility concerns a receiving order must be made.

Hong Kong Case Law

LINCOLN (H.K.) LTD v. KHAN, MOHAMED AFZAL

HOONG CHIU KAI v. WAI YIP DISPENSARY LTD

THE KA WAH BANK LIMITED v. D.W.J. OOSTERVELD

RE LOK SHUN t/a MEI SUN WEAVING FACTORY