Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mandatory injunctions

Legal area

Court

15 Dec 2025

ELITE REAL ESTATE LTD 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF FORTUNE GARDEN, TAI PO

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 74
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM46/2022

The Owners failed to discharge their contractual and statutory duties to prevent obstruction of common parts and to remove/impound obstructing vehicles; the 6‑step scheme adopted is materially inadequate because it lacks the statutory remove/impound/charge measures necessary for effective short‑ and medium‑term deterrence and risk removal; the Tribunal will therefore exercise its discretion to grant a mandatory injunction ordering the Owners to, within 60 days, designate the estate common parts as restricted parking zones under the Private Roads (Parking) Regulations and implement removal, im…
30 Sept 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHUNG WUI APARTMENTS v. SARWIN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 82
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM361/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the intended grounds attacked the Tribunal's factual findings rather than raising any arguable point of law, the Tribunal had considered the evidence and legitimately found the Incorporated Owners at fault for not engaging an Authorised Person causing delay, and the proposed appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under s.11AA(6).
6 Jun 2022

LAM KIN FONG AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI TING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1741
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1457/2021

The application for default judgment was dismissed because, although procedural requirements were met, the plaintiffs failed to show a genuine and immediate necessity for declaratory and injunctive relief without trial; the declarations sought would affect land interests and third parties and raise factual and legal issues (including Wui membership formalities) that require investigation and evidence at trial.
11 Jun 2021

TUENBO CO LTD v. CHEUNG SUNG LAM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1620
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2019

On construction of the Requisition in its full context (document wording, knowledge of the 2nd Share Charge, antecedent correspondence alleging default, and the statutory regime), an informed reader would understand SF was exercising rights as agent/attorney for the chargors; accordingly the strike‑out application failed and the appeal was dismissed. On the interlocutory summons, the balance of convenience favoured granting preservation and production for inspection and copying of TCL’s company books and records (with certain categories removed), because TCL must be permitted to comply with s…
17 Feb 2016

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA SHANSHUI CEMENT GROUP LTD AND OTHERS v. ZHANG CAIKUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2880/2015

Given the history of the litigation, the retention by Deacons of key documents, Deacons’ ongoing conduct as solicitors for the defendants in related matters, the urgency to trigger the 21‑day compliance period for the mandatory corrective amendments and the low prejudice to absent defendants, it was just and convenient to order substituted personal and ordinary service on Deacons for both defendants until they acknowledge service.
17 Nov 2014

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1359/2014

The court held that an Event of Default occurred on 17 March 2014 for non-payment, the receivers' appointment was justified and valid, the MLO, estoppel and agency challenges did not raise serious issues to be tried and the injunction application in HCA1359/2014 was dismissed; however, Yifung Developments was granted interim mandatory relief to recover its corporate records, obtain access to premises and require auditors and banks to accept instructions from the new directors (with limited exceptions), while an application to amend the 1359 writ was refused except for minor factual additions.
5 Nov 2014

TUNG GA LINEN & COTTON MILLS LTD v. NG KA WAI OTHERWISE KNOWN AS STEVEN NG AND OTHERS

Citation

TUNG GA LINEN & COTTON MILLS LTD v. NG KA WAI OTHERWISE KNOWN AS STEVEN NG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA510/2014

There is a serious issue to be tried that the defendants misused information that is prima facie confidential or of equivalent status to trade secrets; the Schedule and Annexures (with minor amendments adding "as contained in the Plaintiff's files and records" to paragraphs 1–4) are sufficiently specific at interlocutory stage; the balance of convenience and risk of injustice favors granting an interlocutory injunction and delivery up orders to preserve the plaintiff’s position pending trial.
1 Aug 2014

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS

Citation

YIFUNG DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. LIU CHI KEUNG RICKY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1341/2014

The ex parte injunction was set aside because the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite urgency or need for secrecy — the Receivers had prior correspondence, knew the defendant's solicitors and had time to apply inter partes — and there was no justification for bypassing notice; the court did not find material nondisclosure sufficient to require setting aside on that ground.
27 Jun 2008

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND ANOTHER v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SHENZHEN FUTAIHONG PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD AND ANOTHER v. BYD CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2114/2007

The 1st and 2nd Defendants failed to discharge the burden to show that Shenzhen is clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum; significant juridical advantages available in Hong Kong—compulsory discovery and interrogatories, higher realistic recovery of damages, remedies such as constructive trust, tracing, exemplary and mandatory injunctions and indemnity costs—would be lost in Shenzhen and collectively create a real risk that the Plaintiffs would not obtain substantial justice there; accordingly the stay application is dismissed.
25 Jun 2008

MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS

Citation

MANDECLY LTD AND ANOTHER v. HAO WEI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2008

The appeal court set aside the finding/order of contempt because the committal motion was inadequately framed and failed to specify the alleged contempts; the requirement for the defendant to file a purge proposal was improper; and fresh evidence called into question the defendants' ability to comply (shares were charged and some properties could not be transferred), therefore the matter must be remitted to the Court of First Instance to be reheard before a different judge.