Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment out of court

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

SHRESTHA DENIKA v. PIZZAEXPRESS (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1677
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1661/2021

Order 22 rule 23 applied because the plaintiff failed to obtain a judgment better than the sanctioned payment; it was not unjust to make the orders under that rule. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs on quantum from 10 December 2021 on an indemnity basis with certificate for counsel, awarded interest only on the sum of HK$190,990 actually paid by the defendant's insurer at half of judgment rate plus 1% per annum from 10 December 2021 to 3 November 2023 and judgment rate thereafter until full payment, disallowed interest on the Judgment Sum pursuant to Order 22 r23(2)…
12 Sept 2023

ASAHI IWASAWA & ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS LTD v. SHIBAKAWA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2340
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA969/2014

The Form 23 notice filed by the Defendant complied with the mandatory requirements of Order 22 rule 8 and therefore constituted a valid standalone sanctioned payment of HK$500,000 which the Plaintiff validly accepted; Order 22 must be applied according to its terms and the parties' contractual intentions or assertions of 'common sense' cannot override the statutory procedural scheme, entitling the Plaintiff to the consequential relief and costs under Order 22.
13 Jul 2023

BEI NI LTD v. CORNWELL (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1799
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA923/2022

The Huatai Share Charge was a fixed charge because Huatai had positive legal control over the charged shares and over sale proceeds which were automatically applied to reduce the margin debt; accordingly the Huatai Share Charge has priority over the plaintiff's P Charging Order and the Sum paid into court is to be paid out to Huatai; however no implied undertaking as to damages arose from the P Charging Order nisi and that limb of Huatai's application is dismissed.
28 Dec 2020

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3121
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2012

No Quistclose trust arose: the HK$3,000,000 was advanced as loans to the company, the funds were mixed in the company's bank account, the Acknowledgement was signed by the company not the funders and contained no express trust term, and there was insufficient evidence that property did not pass to the company; accordingly the fund is treated as money standing to the credit of the plaintiffs/action and the court ordered payment out to the 3rd Defendant to the extent of the Indebtedness with any balance to the Plaintiffs.
18 Jul 2012

YEUNG KAM SHING v. ISS EASTPOINT FACILITY SERVICES LTD

Citation

YEUNG KAM SHING v. ISS EASTPOINT FACILITY SERVICES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC999/2008

The court held that equitable set-off applied and, after taxation, the respondent's taxed costs exceeded the applicant's award and costs payable by the respondent; accordingly no money became payable to the applicant for purposes of s19A and the statutory charge under s18A did not prevent the court ordering payment out to the respondent. Therefore the sum of HK$82,150.92 standing in court was ordered paid to the respondent with interest (if any), and the respondent awarded the costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
6 Jul 2011

CON PAC NIAGA SDN BHD v. HONGKEW HOLDING LTD

Citation

CON PAC NIAGA SDN BHD v. HONGKEW HOLDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2523/1993

On the balance of the evidence, including matching share certificate numbers with the inspector's report and absence of competing claims, the Applicant proved beneficial ownership of 8.6 million of the sold shares and is entitled to the proportionate part of the sale proceeds and accrued interest; the summons is to be amended and payment ordered accordingly.
30 Jul 2009

ML v. YJ

Citation

ML v. YJ
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV89/2008

The Court approved the parties' agreed terms substituting paragraph 6 of the draft order — discharging the earlier maintenance pending suit order, directing the Respondent to pay HK$450,000 per month with initial and interim payments to be made out of specified funds standing in Court until those funds (and interest) are exhausted, after which direct monthly payments must be made — and held that the husband's undertaking properly forms part of the order and must be recited in the draft order.
19 Sept 2007

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW677/2004

The application was partially allowed: the court held that permitting Mr Lau to withdraw HK$15,000 per week for living expenses did not defeat the purpose of the Mareva injunction because he had disclosed his assets and had no other source of funds; however payment out for legal costs was refused at this stage because there was insufficient evidence of actual costs incurred (only statements on account) and uncertainty about the proposed appeal, so authorisation to pay those legal costs was inappropriate for now.