Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim injunctive relief

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2022

NG CHUNG YING DAYDES v. TANG MAN KIT otherwise known as TANG MAN KIT, TERRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1439/2021

Applicant established serious issues to be tried (validity of removals/appointments, validity of Bonus tenancies, and validity of Tinting Lease including maintenance/champerty questions) but failed to show real risk of loss or dissipation or that appointment of an interim receiver was just or convenient; D1 remained the sole registered manager with legal power under s15 NTO to enter the Tinting Lease and the balance of convenience and demands of justice weighed against appointing a receiver, so the Summons was dismissed.
26 Nov 2021

CHAN SHING LAM AND OTHERS v. WINSCORE INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3563
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1251/2020

The court exercised its wide discretion under Order 4 r.9 and Order 1B r.1(2)(e) to order that HCMP 1251/2020 be adjourned to be heard together with HCMP 787/2020 because the proceedings arise from the same fundamental dispute over the Subject 30% shareholding, the disputed Companies Registry documents cannot be sensibly resolved in isolation from the question of beneficial ownership/validity of transfers, and consolidation promotes efficient and just resolution; the interim injunction application was dismissed as otiose given the consolidation direction and the fact the Daya Bay Camp has eff…
28 Sept 2021

WONG YU CHO, ROLLY v. LAI CHI WAH, ANDREW, DIRECTOR OF LANDS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2895
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1266/2021

The application for leave was dismissed because the impugned acts concerned management of government land (a matter not ordinarily subject to public law review), there were no reasonably arguable grounds of review, and the application was untimely with material non‑disclosure such that leave would in any event have been refused; consequently interim injunctive relief was also refused.
17 Mar 2015

YU YUCHUAN AND OTHERS v. CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

YU YUCHUAN AND OTHERS v. CHINA SHANSHUI INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP360/2015

The court granted leave under s733 because the applicants established on the face of the application that there are serious questions to be tried concerning potential breaches of fiduciary duty and improper purpose in the approval of the general mandate, the CNBM subscription and the 2015 share option grants, and it appears to be in the company’s interests that the statutory derivative/unfair prejudice proceedings be brought; notice under s733 was dispensed with for urgency; the applicants must undertake to apply to withdraw the existing common law derivative action before the leave order is…
26 Mar 2010

CHEUNG WING LAN v. KWOK CHUNG CHEE

Citation

CHEUNG WING LAN v. KWOK CHUNG CHEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2009

The injunction was granted because on the evidence there was a serious question to be tried, the plaintiff as sole executor had a duty to protect estate assets, there was a real risk the defendant would continue interfering with tenants and estate property, and the defendant consented to a protective mechanism for rental income (separate solicitors' bank account with statements), which made interim relief appropriate.
1 Aug 2006

MICHEL HAZAN v. HK SINDY FOOTWEARS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MICHEL HAZAN v. HK SINDY FOOTWEARS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1240/2006

The court found there is a serious question to be tried on beneficial ownership and unfair prejudice, a real risk of dissipation and insufficient protection from respondents' undertakings; the balance of convenience favours appointment of interim receivers provided the petitioner gives an undertaking as to damages and reasonable fortification (accepted: retention of US$200,000 and a US$200,000 bank guarantee), therefore relief to appoint interim receivers is granted in principle with a further hearing to fix terms and costs.
9 Jun 2004

PAT BOBBY YING HO AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG SOLICITORS INDEMNITY FUND LTD

Citation

PAT BOBBY YING HO AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG SOLICITORS INDEMNITY FUND LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT40/2004

The court held that the subpoena order was properly made to secure an available witness for the arbitration; the arbitrator's provisional and urgent correspondence did not amount to bias or misconduct sufficient to justify removal; the Claimants failed to show a serious or arguable case warranting interim relief to set aside the subpoena or to enjoin the arbitration, and the ex parte interim application was refused.
17 May 2004

CHUNG HO FAI v. GORDON (HK) DESIGNER & ENGINEER LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHUNG HO FAI v. GORDON (HK) DESIGNER & ENGINEER LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1203/2004

The ex parte injunction was refused because the petitioner failed to show the requisite urgency and lack of adequate remedies; there was a real prospect that equitable remedies in Hong Kong (including constructive trust over the 51% holding) would provide redress, so ex parte relief was not justified.
13 Aug 1999

HOBERMAN DESIGNS INC v. LIEN TAI TRADING CO LTD

Citation

HOBERMAN DESIGNS INC v. LIEN TAI TRADING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7501/1999

The Plaintiff proved title and copying by uncontroverted affidavit and exhibited products; the Defendant disclosed no genuine defence and expert evidence was unnecessary; accordingly there was no bona fide triable issue and summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with reliefs in terms of the Order 14 Summary Judgment Summons.
17 Apr 1998

W v. W AND ANOTHER

Citation

W v. W AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC7/1997

Given admitted managerial deadlock and urgent risk to hotel licences and asset dissipation, the court exercised its discretionary power to appoint Messrs. Arthur Andersen as receivers to control hotel finances, granted the wife interim day-to-day managerial control subject to capital expenditure caps, restrained the husband from dealing with hotel income and from involvement in daily management, and ordered disputed nightclub dividends to be deposited into a jointly‑controlled account pending final adjudication; disclosure and affirmation timelines were imposed and costs allocated accordingly.