Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim receiver

Legal area

Court

23 Apr 2026

WONG PUI YIN GEORGEANNA (as the administratrix of the estate of WONG CECILIA PUI LUEN, deceased) v. HIROSHI TECHNOLOGIES LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 726
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV218/2023

The appeals in CACV 218-220 were allowed and the orders made on the originating summonses were set aside because the judge committed a procedural irregularity by deciding the originating summonses without listing them for hearing or giving parties notice and opportunity to be heard; however, the judge's exercise of discretion in refusing to stay the originating summonses did not disclose error and the applications for leave to appeal against that refusal (CAMP 351-353) were dismissed for lack of reasonable prospects of success.
27 Aug 2020

WEALTHY ACHIEVERS LTD v. LUI HON CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA840/2020

The summons seeking mandatory interim-interim relief was dismissed because, despite arguable merits, the plaintiff failed to provide an adequate explanation for significant delay and gave insufficient notice to defendants and the court; the intrusive nature of the requested relief required a fuller adversarial hearing and proper time for the court to consider evidence and legal principles, so only unopposed joinder of Oriental and leave to amend the writ were granted.
31 Jul 2013

PIONEER IRON AND STEEL GROUP CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BVI) v. CHEN NINGNING AND OTHERS

Citation

PIONEER IRON AND STEEL GROUP CO LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BVI) v. CHEN NINGNING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1827/2013

The Court of Appeal allowed the ex parte appointment of an interim receiver to preserve the status quo over the contested PMC Shares because the plaintiff pursued a proprietary claim, confidentiality and enforcement difficulties in the PRC made damages potentially inadequate, and the appeal court's role under Order 59 rule 14(3B) is confined to re‑considering ex parte relief and its terms rather than deciding inter partes merits.
6 Oct 2011

KCY v. HJFG

Citation

KCY v. HJFG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP685/2011

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed; the court held that costs of the failed interlocutory application should be awarded to the successful party (the husband), to be taxed if not agreed, and that a certificate for the employment of two counsel was appropriate given the novelty and commercial complexity of the application.
12 Jul 2011

KCY v. HJFG

Citation

KCY v. HJFG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP685/2011

Leave to appeal was refused and the appointment of an interim receiver was dismissed because the judge at first instance correctly exercised his discretion: the husband's undertaking provided adequate protection pending ancillary relief, the wife failed to show inevitable prejudice that would justify the extraordinary remedy of receivership, and the commercial risks to the companies from appointing a receiver outweighed the potential protective benefits; no error of principle or other reason in the interests of justice to permit an appeal was established.
27 Jan 2011

WANG MEI NA v. TANG MU LIEN AND OTHERS

Citation

WANG MEI NA v. TANG MU LIEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA421/2010

On the evidence the 1st–3rd defendants had usurped the estate's shareholder rights in Bowdex and acted in a manner characteristic of executors (intermeddling/executors de son tort); the plaintiff, though not yet registered as shareholder, had sufficient equitable interest in the estate to justify equitable relief; there was a real risk of further depletion and damages were not an adequate remedy; accordingly an interim receiver should be appointed and injunctive relief granted to preserve the estate pending determination of the action.
27 Aug 2009

GAO HAI YIN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GAO HAI YIN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1315/2009

Because the 23 July decision found material non-disclosure and that the plaintiffs misled the court, and because the plaintiffs' late complaints were not part of the case at the inter partes hearing and could not be fairly entertained at the costs stage, the court exercised its discretion to award indemnity costs to the defendants (other than the 5th defendant) and certified the attendance of two counsel for the 20 July 2009 hearing; the costs of this application are to be treated as part of the costs awarded in the 23 July decision.
23 Jul 2009

GAO HAI YIN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GAO HAI YIN AND ANOTHER v. KEENEYE HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1315/2009

The court found the plaintiffs' case inherently unbelievable in light of contemporaneous documents and post-release conduct, concluded there was no serious question to be tried on the validity of the Agreements as pleaded, identified material non-disclosure, and exercised its discretion to discharge the ex parte orders and decline to re-grant them.