Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment out of funds

Legal area

Court

4 Mar 2020

FUNG TIN YAU v. FUNG TIN SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 379
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW171/2016

The court exercised its wide case management discretion to order a consolidated set of pleadings because the 11 actions share a common factual matrix and legal issues, pleadings were not closed in all actions, and a consolidated pleading will streamline issues, reduce duplication and save time and costs; consequential directions and costs orders were made accordingly.
5 Dec 2018

WADDINGTON LTD v. CHAN CHUN HOO THOMAS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3291/2003

The court held that Parts 3A and 3B could not be taxed against the 5th Defendant under the March 2014 order because those parts relate to appeal costs which were not covered by the First Instance Indemnity or CA Indemnity; Part 27 falls within the scope of the First Instance Indemnity and leave to amend to add Part 27 was granted; the court ordered payment out of HK$50,000,000 to the 5th Defendant because the funds in court plainly belonged to it and there were no sufficient legal obstacles to payment out by this court.
29 Jan 2015

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG HING v. WONG CHOR CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV97/2011

Plaintiff satisfied the express condition in clause (5) of the consent order by paying $670,000 into court and, because the appeal in CACV 100/2014 was dismissed, he is entitled to payment out of that sum with accrued interest; potential further appeals or Best Century's enforcement contentions are immaterial given the specific undertakings and conditions in the consent order.
27 Jul 2011

IRONWOOD OVERSEAS LTD v. LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG

Citation

IRONWOOD OVERSEAS LTD v. LAM ROGERIO SOU FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2545/2005

The application for stay was dismissed because the appellant failed to show strong grounds of appeal and failed to establish an appreciable risk that the appeal would be rendered nugatory (insufficient evidence of respondent's impecuniosity or disposition of assets); accordingly the sums paid into court were ordered paid out to the successful party and interim stay refused.
4 Oct 2002

DAH CHONG HONG (ENGINEERING) LTD. v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

DAH CHONG HONG (ENGINEERING) LTD. v. BOLDWIN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1291/2002

Where an arbitration agreement exists and the defendant states it will apply for a stay if a default judgment is set aside, the court need not, as an initial matter, require the Defence Requirement to be satisfied; the court should focus on the stay application and refer disputes to arbitration unless grounds to refuse stay exist, and where stay will be granted a regular default judgment should be set aside. Only if the stay is likely to fail does the court then require the Defence Requirement to be met.
29 Jan 2002

LO SUK LING VILLY v. THE METHODIST CHURCH HONG KONG & OTHERS

Citation

LO SUK LING VILLY v. THE METHODIST CHURCH HONG KONG & OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV355/2001

Because the claim was transferred from the Labour Tribunal by the Presiding Officer and was not brought in the Court of First Instance, section 44A(6) does not apply; the defendants failed to seek a transfer to the District Court or to raise the point at trial or on appeal, so their application to vary the costs order nisi is refused and the payment out is ordered.
2 Apr 1998

HAPPY DYNASTY LTD. v. WAI KEE (ZENS) CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. and DYNO WESFARMERS (HK) LTD. (Third Party)

Citation

HAPPY DYNASTY LTD. v. WAI KEE (ZENS) CONSTRUCTION & TRANSPORTATION CO. LTD. and DYNO WESFARMERS (HK) LTD. (Third Party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL41/1995

Defendants failed to demonstrate special circumstances or that their appeal would be rendered nugatory if the sums paid into court were released to the Plaintiff; on balance of convenience and having given full weight to the Plaintiff's entitlement to the judgment, the court dismissed the stay application and ordered payment out of the sums in court to the Plaintiff.
6 Mar 1986

NGAI KWONG SUEN t/a BOGA TRADING CO v. DAWIN SHIPPING (AGENCIES) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NGAI KWONG SUEN t/a BOGA TRADING CO v. DAWIN SHIPPING (AGENCIES) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1486/1985

Summary determination and payment out were refused because there was no satisfactory evidence of undue delay or clear entitlement; instead the court granted an order for a speedy trial with the proposed directions and ordered the 1st defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the application to be taxed, with certification for two counsel.