Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mareva (freezing) injunction

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2025

HOU HSIAO BING v. REN BAOGEN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/2019

Court allowed amendment under the slip rule/inherent jurisdiction to clarify the specific performance order to state that the defendant must purchase the plaintiff's 131,140,000 shares including any consolidation or splitting and the price to be adjusted accordingly (paragraph 48 formulation) because the manifest intention of the court was to order purchase of the plaintiff's entire holding and that intention is properly expressed by an amendment covering consolidations/splits; consequently the defendant's setting aside application was dismissed; the Mareva injunction was continued but its ce…
17 Oct 2025

WANG WEIQING v. ZHUO YIHAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/2022

The proprietary injunction as to the TV6 Address was discharged because the plaintiff unjustifiably proceeded ex parte in respect of Binance and committed serious material non-disclosure (not shown to be innocent) about pre-action correspondence and the pooled-hot-wallet nature of TV6 and potential bona fide purchaser defence; the court declined to re-grant the proprietary interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff failed to justify the nondisclosure and did not demonstrate means to honour undertaking as to damages; discharge delayed 14 days to permit further steps; disclosure orders unde…
15 Oct 2025

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. HWH HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4739
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2943/2015

Court found on the balance of probabilities there was a form of round‑tripping/under‑invoicing that undermined reliance on Delco Asia accounting entries; the majority of the alleged Debts (HKM Metal Debt and Chern Debt and large parts of other asserted sums) were not genuine repayable debts and assignments were ineffective; the 2010 Agreement and Convention were not established; CT did not breach the CB Undertaking as pleaded; Delco proved breach of fiduciary duty by Fang for non‑disclosure of USUM negotiations prior to the January 2015 sale and Delco was entitled to equitable compensation of…
30 May 2025

ORION ENGINEERED CARBONS GMBH v. UNIVERSAL ALL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP210/2025

Default judgment was granted against the Remaining HCA defendants on the pleaded restitution and tracing claims; however the court held that section 52 Trustee Ordinance does not support vesting orders in this fraud/remedial constructive trust context and therefore refused vesting orders, and refused garnishee orders as premature absent a judgment-based enforcement process; costs of HCMP 210 were ordered against the plaintiff, including indemnity costs for the banks if claimed.
28 Apr 2025

南京涵恩物資有限公司 v. WU HUI DI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1747
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1472/2020

The court refused to make the garnishee orders nisi absolute and refused to vary the Mareva injunction because cumulative and reasonable suspicions arising from timing anomalies, lack of documentary evidence of loan terms, discrepancies in amounts, evolving and inconsistent witness affirmations, and the nature of Mainland litigation created sufficient doubt about the bona fides of the default judgment debts to warrant a full investigation and contested resolution at trial; accordingly the court ordered procedural directions to test the bona fides and awarded costs to Nanjing Hanen.
18 Mar 2025

LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 276
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV418/2022

The appeal was allowed and the first instance order set aside because the judge erred in failing to take into account relevant evidence and contextual matters; the proposed defences, while shadowy, raised triable issues and were arguable at interlocutory stage, and the five‑month delay was not wholly inexcusable; leave to file and serve the defence out of time was granted on condition of payment of sums realized into court and the Mareva injunction remains until trial.
3 Dec 2024

ANTHONY MICHAEL SMITH v. THOMPSON BRIGHT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2047
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4673/2021

The Mareva injunction had been continued only until the determination of the assessment of damages on 12 September 2023 and there was no further order continuing it (and it could not have been continued under Order 32 r 11 RDC); therefore the injunction was no longer in effect and the plaintiff's summons to discharge it was misconceived and unnecessary, warranting dismissal of the summons with no order as to costs.
25 Nov 2024

BCPE DIAMOND HOLDCO SRL v. SUNWE PLASTIC HK LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3370
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA221/2023

Summary judgment granted because plaintiff proved the challenged sums were traceable proceeds of funds misappropriated from plaintiff and thus enrichments of D3 and D5 were at plaintiff's expense and legally unjust; D3 and D5 failed to raise any triable issues or produce cogent evidence to establish the defences of bona fide purchase for value without notice or change of position; the proprietary claim against D5 also made out on tracing and Clayton presumption.
16 Oct 2024

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LEUNG ANITA FUNG YEE MARIA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2800
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1917/2019

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the 14‑day delay was inexcusable and insubstantial and R1 failed to show the proposed appeal had a real prospect of success: the Jeffries Report could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and would not, if believed, have had a very important effect on the judge's holistic assessment of risk of dissipation; no error of principle or irrational exercise of discretion by the trial judge was demonstrated regarding refusal to adjourn or grant of the Mareva injunction.
22 Feb 2024

ZL v. WY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCA 159
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP321/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the Wife could not show reasonable prospects of success on the multiple independent substantive grounds relied upon by the judge (case management discretion regarding adjournment, absence of real risk of dissipation, impropriety of the ex parte without notice application and material non-disclosures). The judge\'s findings were open on the evidence and his exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong.