Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Garnishee

Legal area

Court

20 Nov 2025

FUNG SHING CHUNG v. CHOI KING HUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2129/2024

The court granted an order for sale of the remaining 11,360,000 Hans Energy shares because the plaintiff complied with the procedural requirements for enforcing the charging order, the defendant had not satisfied the judgment debt, the premature conduct of the plaintiff's solicitors and prior sales did not amount to a valid ground to resist sale of the unsold shares, and the solicitor's affirmations were admissible as within the solicitor's knowledge.
12 Nov 2025

ANNE FAN AND ANOTHER v. LING YACHAO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1925
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2494/2024

Plaintiffs proved on unchallenged evidence that US$75,000 was transferred as a result of cyberfraud, the transfer is traceable to the 1st defendant's account, the 1st defendant received and was enriched by the sum, no defence was put forward, and equity requires that the 1st defendant hold the traced funds (and proportionate accrued interest) on constructive trust for the plaintiffs; accordingly summary judgment and declaratory relief were appropriate with quantified pro rata allocations and assessed costs.
2 Aug 2022

BAOSTEEL ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO LTD v. CHINA ZENITH CHEMICAL GROUP LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT7/2018

The stay application was dismissed because the matters relied upon by the Defendant either pre-dated the Allocatur or concerned claims by a separate third party (HH) under a different contract and therefore did not undermine the validity of the judgment to be stayed; no special circumstances or sufficient identity of interest existed to justify staying enforcement; the VAT/tax claim is HH's and unproven and expert PRC evidence was late and inadequate; the Award remains enforceable unless set aside and there was no evidence of dissipation or inability to repay.
26 Jan 2022

CCMJ v. SSM (formerly known as SKL)

Citation

[2022] HKCA 173
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2021

The Father was in deliberate and continuing contempt for non-payment of maintenance and carer's allowance; that contempt materially impeded the course of justice and no other realistic and effective remedy existed. A proportionate Hadkinson order was therefore justified: the appeal and associated summons would not be heard unless the Father paid the specified outstanding sum of HKD 409,616 by 28 February 2022 and made the February 2022 monthly payments of HKD 13,726 (N) and HKD 10,000 (Mother) and continued to pay those monthly sums when due; failure to comply would result in the appeal and s…
24 Sept 2021

LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2828
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2067/2019

Given the substantial shortfall on the judgment, the defendant's obstructive non-compliance with disclosure and injunction orders, the impracticability and disproportionate cost of pursuing recognition and enforcement overseas, and the reasonable prospect that receivers would realise material value, it was just and convenient to appoint receivers over the identified Class A assets and to extend the receivership to Class B assets; receivers empowered to procure sales and, after 7 days' written notice on certification of non-compliance, to execute sale/transfer documents in lieu of the judgment…
31 May 2017

TOYOTA TSUSHO (H.K.) CORPORATION LTD v. CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

TOYOTA TSUSHO (H.K.) CORPORATION LTD v. CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1173/2011

The court varied the costs order nisi to a Bullock order because CIC was found blameless and entitled to rely on representations, Toyota HK bore a fair share of blame for its loss (including inadequate inquiries and misuse of banking credit), and Kirin had not participated and was apparently impecunious; balancing fairness and hardship the court concluded a Bullock order was appropriate and made specific indemnity costs and certificate orders.
12 Jan 2015

EDS WELLNESS HOLDINGS LTD v. SHUM YEUNG

Citation

EDS WELLNESS HOLDINGS LTD v. SHUM YEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1775/2012

EDS's application to file the 9th affirmation was allowed. Shum's summons to set aside the sealed summary judgment was dismissed for procedural defect because the court was functus officio; the sealed judgment could only be impugned by appeal or fresh action. Costs awarded to EDS, to be taxed if not agreed, with certificate for two counsel.
27 Feb 2013

CHUNG WINSTON v. MIAO ZHENGUO AND OTHERS

Citation

CHUNG WINSTON v. MIAO ZHENGUO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1290/2012

The debtor failed to establish a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or any vitiating factor (lack of instructions, implied term, mistake or estoppel) sufficient to impeach the 24 April consent order and judgment; there was no evidence of improper motive by the petitioners; consequently a bankruptcy order should issue and related stay and appeal applications dismissed.
27 Jan 2011

WANG RUIYUN v. GEM GLOBAL YIELD FUND LTD

Citation

WANG RUIYUN v. GEM GLOBAL YIELD FUND LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL16/2006

Mr Wang failed to establish the necessary prima facie case that the charged assets held by GEM Cayman were beneficially owned by GEM Nevis; similarity of company names and group association, without concrete evidence of confederacy, funding or representation, is insufficient to impose a charging order on third-party assets; accordingly the charging order nisi must be discharged.
23 Mar 2010

MUTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. CARPE DIEM PUBLICATIONS LTD

Citation

MUTUAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO LTD v. CARPE DIEM PUBLICATIONS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4172/2009

Carpe Diem failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success: the alleged assault and other management complaints did not excuse contractual obligation to pay rent nor give a right of set-off, and Mutual was the contracting landlord; accordingly the Master's order refusing to set aside the default judgment was upheld.