29 Apr 2020
Defendants failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal with reasonable prospects of success because their grounds merely challenge factual findings made after live evidence and do not show any palpable or plainly wrong errors; accordingly the summons for stay of execution pending appeal is dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
23 Apr 2020
Court held Hadkinson order appropriate: Zhang, already found in wilful contempt for failure to comply with disclosure orders, must purge contempt by full disclosure as condition to be heard on her voluntary summons; the summons to set aside enforcement orders was adjourned for three months on condition that respondents pay into court security equal to 40% of the total Awards and costs on indemnity basis, failing which the summons would be dismissed; on a preliminary view the Awards were manifestly valid and the respondents' challenge to tribunal composition under Article 27(3) of the CIETAC R…
25 Oct 2019
The Enforcement Order was set aside on the basis that the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure in the affidavit supporting the ex parte application; the court exercised its discretion to unset the ex parte relief and indicated it may impose terms, including security, for any further prosecution of the application.
22 Mar 2019
The court refused to impose the plaintiffs' requested additional condition that D5 pay HK$3,733,884 into court, holding there was no proper or necessary reason to exercise its discretion differently from the way it had been exercised in respect of D3, D4, D6 and D7.
18 Jul 2018
A temporary stay of enforcement was granted only on the condition that CZ provide full security in Hong Kong (payment into court of RMB 19,818,046 or an acceptable bank guarantee within 14 days); ongoing and unliquidated Mainland proceedings, and a third party's alleged cross‑claim, do not by themselves justify delaying enforcement where the judgment creditor would be unfairly prejudiced and adequate security can be provided.
15 Dec 2014
Leave to appeal was granted because the appeal had some prospects of success; a stay pending appeal was justified because the existing condition for leave was impracticable and refusal to stay would risk enforcement causing serious prejudice (including possible bankruptcy) which could render the appeal ineffective; the court therefore granted a stay on condition that HK$30,000,000 be paid into court within 14 days and ordered the costs of the applications to be costs in the appeal.
16 Aug 2013
The interim stay was refused because the appellants did not demonstrate strong prospects of success, failed to show they could not comply with the conditional stay (evidence of insolvency/gambling losses was unsatisfactory), and the appeal would not necessarily be rendered nugatory as insolvency officers could continue proceedings; the balance of prejudice did not favor granting a stay.
5 Jun 2013
The court has jurisdiction to adjourn an application to set aside or vary an order giving leave to enforce a Mainland award; an adjournment was appropriate pending determination of the Shenzhen proceedings because the Mainland proceedings could render the award non-binding; given inconclusive expert evidence and objective indicators of risk to enforcement the court required Wing Shing to provide security of HK$20,000,000 by payment into court or other security acceptable to the court, with costs in the cause and liberty to apply.
22 Nov 2011
The court granted a stay of execution pending appeal on condition that the plaintiff pay into court or provide an acceptable bank guarantee for US$5,000,000 within six weeks, after forming a preliminary view that the appeal was arguable and that the damages might be reduced but not to the extent claimed by the plaintiff; the court balanced the merits and the plaintiff's financial assertions and reduced the security from the full judgment sum to US$5 million.
28 Nov 2007
The court granted a conditional stay because the appeal on the interest point was arguably (albeit barely) tenable, but weighed against the defendant's evasion of service and the need to protect the judgment creditor; accordingly the stay was conditioned upon the defendant bringing into court the principal sum of $6,356,000 by 1pm on 14 December 2007, failing which the stay would be discharged and the plaintiff permitted to enforce the judgment.