Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 21 evidence ordinance disclosure

Legal area

Court

23 Jan 2025

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB and WONG KWOK KEUNG THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY OF YUNG KWOK LEONG, A BANKRUPT v. YUNG KA CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 545
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1248/2021

Because the 1st Defendant's sworn affidavit effectively made the discovery and s.21 applications unnecessary and confirmed the absence of the requested documents and the irrelevance of the loan, the Plaintiff substantially achieved the relief sought and was entitled to costs of the SD Summons and the application to discontinue; no costs were awarded to Defendants in respect of the S.21 EO Summons as Defendants were not respondents and costs had been agreed between Plaintiff and the bank.
10 May 2024

ATLAS CORP v. LI XIONGHUA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 750
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2408/2024

The court found the s21 criteria satisfied: the requested bank records were specified with sufficient particularity, there was a real prospect they would lead to the location or preservation of assets subject to the plaintiff's proprietary claim, and the balance of prejudice favored disclosure; accordingly the disclosure orders against the three banks were granted (with the relevant date fixed at 19 March 2024) and the proprietary and top-up Mareva injunctions were continued until and including 5 July 2024; costs of the summons were reserved.
27 May 2022

CABLE, BRADLEY PAUL v. RED BRIDGE UNIVERSAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1877/2021

The Court continued the Mareva injunction and granted a limited disclosure order under section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance because the Plaintiff established a good arguable case of fraud and a real risk of dissipation; the specified accounts and documents for the period 31 Oct 2019 to 30 Apr 2020 were relevant and proportionate; broader ongoing disclosure was refused to protect privacy and avoid excessive, uncontrolled investigator powers.
11 Jan 2019

JESSICA SCHWARTZ PADDOCK v. KUSHAL IMPEX (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 156
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9/2019

The court held that the plaintiff has shown a serious issue to be tried and a good arguable proprietary claim in respect of funds received by the 1st defendant (receipt‑based restitutionary proprietary claim permitted), that there is a real risk of dissipation justifying a top‑up Mareva injunction and that disclosure orders under section 21 are warranted to trace and preserve assets; accordingly interim proprietary and Mareva injunctions were granted against the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants (with the injunction limited to amounts paid by the plaintiff), the s.21 disclosure orders against the b…
14 Oct 2016

FLIGHT TRAINING INTERNATIONAL, INC v. JIEYUN ENTERPRISES CO LTD

Citation

FLIGHT TRAINING INTERNATIONAL, INC v. JIEYUN ENTERPRISES CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4068/2016

The injunction was continued because the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case of fraud, assets or a real risk of dissipation within the jurisdiction and no material change since the ex parte order; Section 21 disclosure was ordered because the plaintiff showed strong evidence of being fraudulently deprived of the funds, the information sought was appropriately limited and an undertaking was offered, making bank disclosure necessary to trace and preserve assets.

Hong Kong Case Law

OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB and WONG KWOK KEUNG THE JOINT AND SEVERAL TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY OF YUNG KWOK LEONG, A BANKRUPT v. YUNG KA CHUN AND ANOTHER

ATLAS CORP v. LI XIONGHUA AND ANOTHER

CABLE, BRADLEY PAUL v. RED BRIDGE UNIVERSAL LTD AND OTHERS

JESSICA SCHWARTZ PADDOCK v. KUSHAL IMPEX (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

FLIGHT TRAINING INTERNATIONAL, INC v. JIEYUN ENTERPRISES CO LTD