Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Good arguable case test

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

HCMP1080/2024

The court held that the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction should be continued because CEG established a good arguable case of serious misstatements in the consolidated financial statements and of breaches of directors' duties by Xia, there were insufficient assets in Hong Kong to satisfy any judgment, and there was a real risk of dissipation; alleged failures of prior notice or non-disclosure were not sufficiently prejudicial to warrant discharge and the CSRC Decision could not be relied on for the truth of its findings though Liquidators' investigatory evidence was admissible; consequentl…
19 Aug 2021

HWANG JOON SANG AND ANOTHER v. GOLDEN ELECTRONICS INC. AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2425
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1529/2019

The plaintiffs established at least a good arguable case that justified continuation of the worldwide Mareva and proprietary injunctions; the alleged non-disclosures were either not material or innocent, and on the totality of circumstances the court would exercise its discretion to continue/re-grant the injunctions; consequently the Discharge Summons was dismissed and the injunctions maintained, with costs to the plaintiffs on a nisi basis.
30 Oct 2020

CHINA NATIONAL GEOLOGICAL & MINING (HK) LTD v. TIANJIN HOPETONE CO, LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2780
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1589/2018

The Court held the Defendant did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on its grounds for leave to appeal: on the available evidence the Plaintiff had a good arguable case that the agreements were valid or that the jurisdiction clause applied (separability and ostensible authority principles), the bribery allegation was bare and unsupported, and there was a serious issue to be tried on the commission claim; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
28 May 2020

DAELIM CORPORATION v. BONITA CO. LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 902
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT34/2019

The court continued the Hong Kong injunction because plaintiff established a good arguable case that the TSA did not settle the unpaid hire (TSA covered only prospective loss), there was sufficient urgency and legitimate reason for secrecy for an ex parte application, the alleged non-disclosures were not material to the ex parte judge's weighing exercise, and the UK arbitration was capable of producing an award enforceable in Hong Kong; accordingly the balance of justice required continuation of the injunction.
12 Aug 2019

NEWOCEAN PETROLEUM CO LTD v. RIO TINTO SHIPPING (ASIA) PTE. LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 897
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/2018

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal correctly applied the 'good arguable case' test on the evidence available at the interlocutory stage, found a plausible evidential basis for ownership, retention of title and jurisdictional acts, and concluded it was inappropriate to conduct a mini‑trial or permit a further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on an evidential appraisal absent issues of great general or public importance.
15 Jun 2016

CHU WEN JING JENNIFER v. SIN HON WAI

Citation

CHU WEN JING JENNIFER v. SIN HON WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10/2016

The plaintiff established a good arguable case and the balance of convenience favours continuing the Mareva injunction; the defendant's limited undertaking and failure to disclose assets were insufficient to justify variation; accordingly the injunction is continued until judgment or further order and the defendant's application to vary by releasing HKD 2,000,000 is refused; costs of the application ordered to be plaintiff's costs in the cause (costs order nisi).
15 Jun 2016

CHU WEN JING JENNIFER v. SIN HON WAI

Citation

CHU WEN JING JENNIFER v. SIN HON WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6/2016

The court held that the plaintiff established a good arguable case and that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the ex parte Mareva injunction until judgment or further order; the defendant's undertaking and limited disclosure were inadequate; the application to vary the order to release HK$2,000,000 for legal fees was refused; costs reserved to be plaintiff's costs in the cause.
28 Jan 2016

GRUPO PACIFICA INCORPORADA v. WORLDWIDE MARINE PRODUCT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GRUPO PACIFICA INCORPORADA v. WORLDWIDE MARINE PRODUCT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV217/2015

The Court held the Judge below erred in principle by finding no good arguable case; the plaintiff established more than a barely arguable claim that US$449,963.60 (and a corresponding sum credited to the 2nd defendant) had been transferred without authority and that the unusual facts undermined the 1st defendant's claimed bona fides. The 1st defendant's change of position defence was not sufficiently established on the interlocutory material to defeat continuation. The material non-disclosure point was raised too late and lacked evidential basis at this stage. On the balance of convenience an…
30 Mar 2010

SINO RESOURCES GROUP LTD v. HUNG CHEN RICHAEL AND OTHERS

Citation

SINO RESOURCES GROUP LTD v. HUNG CHEN RICHAEL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2477/2009

The ex parte order was discharged because the plaintiff was guilty of serious material non-disclosure of matters that were clearly material to the court's assessment of an ex parte application. Despite that, the injunction was re-granted because the plaintiff nevertheless established a good arguable case, the injunction was narrowly targeted to preserve the plaintiff's convertible notes and shares thereby protecting the status quo, the defendants would not suffer real harm, no undertaking in lieu was offered by the defendants, and the non-disclosure did not appear deliberate; costs consequenc…
11 Dec 1991

YEE SANG METAL AND BUILDING SUPPLIES CO. LTD. v. TAIYO MARITIME S.A.

Citation

YEE SANG METAL AND BUILDING SUPPLIES CO. LTD. v. TAIYO MARITIME S.A.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV122/1991

The Court of Appeal held the judge below erred in law by not applying the 'good arguable case' test correctly and by deciding the primary factual issue on the affidavits; given the commercial significance of the bills of lading, the coincidences and lack of satisfactory explanation, the plaintiffs had shown a case sufficiently strong to satisfy the qualifying conditions for service out under Ord. 11, so the appeal was allowed and further submissions were to be heard as to the precise orders to be made.