Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim receivers

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2026

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/2024

The judge held that the governing test for appointment of interim receivers is necessity to preserve the status quo and that the Decision did not misapply the law; the Orders were validly founded on an existing Injunction Order which covers the contested assets, the appointment of the Liquidators as receivers was a legitimate exercise of discretion and not reasonably arguable as an error, and the remuneration arrangements proposed (to be paid from Group assets subject to possible variation) did not establish a reasonably arguable ground for appeal; accordingly there was no arguable basis to g…
3 Feb 2026

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 723
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

The court found the proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable: the judge properly applied the necessity test for appointing interim receivers; the Receivership Order validly derived from an existing Injunction Order covering the assets of the 4th defendant and Schedule 1 companies; appointment of the plaintiff's liquidators was a proper exercise of discretion; the remuneration complaint was fact‑specific and did not establish error; consequently there is no arguable appeal and the stay application must fail. Leave to appeal and stay were dismissed and costs ordered against Hui a…
10 Nov 2023

CHEN HONGQING v. ASIA CEMENT CORPORATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2769
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1304/2017

The Statement of Claim was struck out because the plaintiff had repeatedly advanced multiple, contradictory and irreconcilable sworn cases in different proceedings concerning the same rights over the subject shares, conduct that amounted to an abuse of process; no formulated or viable amendment was before the court to cure the abuse, so striking out was proper despite other grounds not being independently decisive.
16 Mar 2021

CHEN HONGQING v. MI JINGTIAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 648
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1304/2017

The Court dismissed HCMP 962/2017 because the arbitral proceedings had been finally determined and the undertakings given pending arbitration lapsed; it refused leave to amend to join the 962 defendants and refused the injunction because the proposed causes of action were contradictory, inherently incredible and plainly unviable so no serious issue to be tried; it granted ACC’s security for costs application and fixed security at HK$1,650,000 plus RMB200,000.
10 Jan 2020

EMPEROR SECURITIES LTD v. SMI INVESTMENT (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 129
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA32/2019

On the existing evidence the proposed massive issuance of shares without the Plaintiff's consent breaches the express terms of the Share Charge, prima facie places the charged shares and their controlling value in jeopardy, damages are inadequate, and less intrusive remedies are insufficient; therefore the court will exercise its discretion to appoint an interim receiver limited to preserving the Subject Shares' value.
16 May 2017

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD

Citation

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1987/2005

The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction: the court will not grant the form of leave sought under Order 30 to make directions affecting non-parties (notably Xie) and the procedures for committal under Order 52 were not followed; accordingly the interlocutory application is refused.
2 Aug 2013

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

Citation

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW282/2010

The application for interim receivers was dismissed because it was premature and misconceived: the independent valuer had been appointed and there was no evidence of incapacity or lack of documents; the buy-out obligation rested on the 1st and 3rd respondents who were not shown to be unable to pay; the valuation date was already fixed; alleged asset dissipation was not pursued; and receivership is a draconian remedy unjustified on the facts.
14 Jun 2013

CHAN CHING AND ANOTHER v. BEIJING RUI HE LTD

Citation

CHAN CHING AND ANOTHER v. BEIJING RUI HE LTD<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1359/2012

The court appointed interim receivers limited to conduct of the CIETAC arbitration because the board was deadlocked and unable to respond to an urgent arbitral timetable, the company had an arguable defence that ought to be protected, and limited receiver appointment was a proportionate means to protect the company's interests absent a workable alternative litigation committee.
6 Mar 2012

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD

Citation

ACHIEVE GOAL HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHONG XIN ORE-MATERIAL HOLDING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1987/2005

The court refused to treat the dismissal application as a trial of issues under its inherent jurisdiction and held that, if such a power were exercised, it must be exercised in the same manner as Order 33 r3/r4(2); because the validity of the settlement was factually intertwined, discovery was incomplete and there was a live dispute over control of a party, it was inappropriate to direct a trial now — the dismissal application may only proceed as a summary process to dismiss plainly and obviously unmeritorious actions.
16 Dec 2011

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS

Citation

LU JUN v. YU QI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW282/2010

Validation was granted in part: dividends and management fees may be used to repay the cash components of shareholder loans and to meet past and reasonable future ordinary business expenses subject to withholding 15% and reporting; validation for the proposed repurchase of Shanghai Hanglong was declined as unnecessary; appointment of provisional liquidators and interim receivers was declined because petitioner did not establish a prima facie case that winding up is likely, the company is solvent, preservation orders exist and trial is imminent.