Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fortification

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2022

MTM LAB JAPAN LTD AND OTHERS v. ABACUS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKDC 917
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1991/2022

There is a serious question to be tried that defendants (or their agents) perpetrated harassing and intimidating acts; plaintiffs offered an adequate cross-undertaking and no convincing evidence was shown that fortification was required; the balance of convenience favoured granting an interlocutory injunction in the terms of the defendants' prior undertaking to prevent further harassment pending trial.
4 Jun 2021

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

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1598
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1416/2019

Because the 1st plaintiff failed to make proper inquiries and thereby failed to disclose material matters at the ex parte stage, its entitlement to costs cannot be awarded outright and the costs of its summons (including reserved costs) are to be in the cause; the defendant's summons was dismissed and the defendant must pay the plaintiffs' costs of that summons in any event; the plaintiffs must pay the defendant's costs of the written submissions on costs on a nisi basis; the 2nd–4th plaintiffs' costs are treated as a single set.
30 Oct 2019

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO - TIANDE GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2646
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The court granted the Mareva injunction because the plaintiff established a good arguable case on its primary monetary claims, there are assets within Hong Kong (the Escrow Fund), and on the balance of the evidence including the defendants' obstructive conduct in the BVI proceedings and liquidators' concerns about distributions, there is a real risk that refusal would permit unjustified dissipation of highly liquid escrowed assets; balance of convenience favoured maintaining the agreed escrow, the plaintiff provided undertakings as to damages, and fortification was refused for lack of substan…
29 Jul 2016

FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FIRST LASER LTD v. FUJIAN ENTERPRISES (HOLDINGS) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1554/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or sufficient interest of justice to permit an appeal from interlocutory case management decisions; the procedural irregularity did not occasion injustice and the judge's discretionary orders (including $2.5 million security and refusal to order fortification) were within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement and not plainly wrong.
3 Mar 2016

SUN YAN v. SUPERB JADE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SUN YAN v. SUPERB JADE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA813/2014

The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving a real likelihood of significant loss arising from the Mareva injunction; the $1,000,000 fortification previously paid is sufficient to protect the applicants (principally as protection against costs), and the summons for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success nor other reason in the interests of justice.
1 Feb 2013

PACIFIC KING SHIPPING HOLDINGS PTE LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) (a company incorporated in Singapore) v. HUANG ZIQIANG

Citation

PACIFIC KING SHIPPING HOLDINGS PTE LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) (a company incorporated in Singapore) v. HUANG ZIQIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2464/2012

Because the plaintiff is an overseas company in liquidation with no assets in Hong Kong but able to raise modest funds, the balance favored requiring modest security and fortification rather than full indemnity: security for costs of HK$500,000 was required up to determination of the discharge application and fortification of HK$780,000 was required to back the undertaking as to damages.
25 Nov 2011

TAIHAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD v. LAU SIU MING AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIHAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD v. LAU SIU MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1687/2011

The court increased the fortification to a bank guarantee of US$3,000,000 because the 3rd Defendant established a real likelihood of substantial loss from the Mareva injunction and the Plaintiff (a locally asset‑poor shell) may be unable to make good such loss; the Plaintiff's parent (TEC) appeared capable of providing the required security and fairness demanded equivalent protection for the 3rd Defendant prior to the inter partes hearing.
25 Jan 2008

INDIAN CORRIDOR SDN BHD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA IDEA DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

INDIAN CORRIDOR SDN BHD AND ANOTHER v. CHINA IDEA DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1/2008

The court allowed limited variation of the Mareva injunction to permit specific withdrawals because banks required express amounts, imposing strict reporting and documentary safeguards to protect plaintiffs; the plaintiffs' undertaking was conservatively fortified at HKD 9,000,000 to secure potential losses, and procedural time and costs directions were given.
16 Nov 2007

STACK ELECTRONICS ASIA LTD v. LU DA LIN AND OTHERS

Citation

STACK ELECTRONICS ASIA LTD v. LU DA LIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1850/2007

The court refused to set aside the ex parte injunctions because the alleged non-disclosures were not shown to be material in the context of the strong prima facie case of fiduciary breach and diversion; on authority it was appropriate to continue the restraint on competition despite imminent termination of the Agency Agreement to prevent New Elite obtaining an unfair head start; the freezing order cap of $21,000,000 was to be maintained pending trial on the basis of the audit report evidence available at interlocutory stage; limited variations to permitted withdrawals were granted and fortifi…
11 Apr 2002

SAN-X CO. LTD. v. TAI PAN BREAD & CAKES CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SAN-X CO. LTD. v. TAI PAN BREAD & CAKES CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA78/2002

The court found that the plaintiff had raised a serious question to be tried both on copyright infringement and on passing off based on arguable visual similarities and plausible access to Kogepan materials; damages would likely be inadequate to redress the plaintiff's loss of licensing exclusivity and control; balance of convenience favored granting an interlocutory injunction subject to fortification because defendants failed to produce evidence that repackaging would cause the dire commercial consequences alleged. The court therefore granted an interlocutory injunction subject to fortifica…