Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sequestration

Legal area

Court

18 Jul 2024

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. IMPERIAL CHARITY HALL MEDICINES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1867
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP13/2022

Proper service (including substituted service) was effected and the defendants wilfully failed to file the required affirmations as ordered; contempt was therefore proved beyond reasonable doubt. The 2nd Defendant was sentenced to 4 months' imprisonment; leave was granted to the Plaintiff to issue a Writ of Sequestration against the 1st Defendant; costs awarded to Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
29 Aug 2022

T v. A

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2631
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1948/2019

The Court held that the Return Order unambiguously imposed a mandatory obligation on the defendant to return the minor to Hong Kong within the stipulated deadline; sequestration is in principle an appropriate means to secure the child’s return; consequently the first stage of the three-stage contempt test (construction) is satisfied and the application for leave to issue a writ of sequestration is adjourned for determination of compliance and state of mind at a substantive hearing.
5 Mar 2019

LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHANG LAN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 618
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP586/2017

Because the defendant's breach was deliberate, intentional and continuing, she refused to attend the penalty hearing and gave no explanation or offer to purge contempt, and because the breach related to substantial undisclosed assets in the context of a Mareva injunction protecting a claim of US$286,815,887, the court concluded that alternatives (suspended sentence, sequestration, fine) were inappropriate and that an immediate custodial sentence of 12 months, together with committal and warrant, was necessary to enforce the order and uphold the administration of justice; costs ordered on an i…
23 Mar 2017

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. KIN LAM MEDICINE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG TO YICK WOOD LOCK OINTMENT LTD v. KIN LAM MEDICINE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2472/2016

The court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the respondents had proper notice of the prior judgments and wilfully failed to comply with them with knowledge of their contents; accordingly each of the companies (1st–3rd respondents) was in contempt and the director (4th respondent) was personally in contempt and liable under Order 45, rule 5(1)(b)(iii), warranting fines for the companies and imprisonment for the director.
29 Nov 2006

TOP FLYING INVESTMENT CO v. OPEN MISSION ASSETS LTD

Citation

TOP FLYING INVESTMENT CO v. OPEN MISSION ASSETS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2006

On the evidence the defendant was in contempt beyond reasonable doubt for failing to deliver the specified share certificates and the sole director, Mr Liu, was in contempt for not taking reasonable steps to secure compliance; service could be dispensed because the defendant's solicitors had notice; accordingly leave to issue a writ of sequestration was granted and costs ordered on an indemnity basis.
20 Nov 2000

EXCEL NOBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

EXCEL NOBLE DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS v. WAH NAM GROUP LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12439/1999

Judge found beyond reasonable doubt that the affirmation was three weeks late and did not comply with the Disclosure Order by failing to disclose C1's directly owned assets and unencumbered values as required; therefore Matthew Chan Kwok Choi was in contempt of the Disclosure Order.
10 Dec 1999

CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. KAM YUEN ELECTRONICS PLASTIC LTD.

Citation

CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. KAM YUEN ELECTRONICS PLASTIC LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA755/1999

The summons for leave to file an affirmation in reply out of time was dismissed because the applicant's 7–8 month delay was not sufficiently justified; in committal proceedings the court will not permit uncertainty and will refuse to exercise discretion to extend time where grounds are inadequate.
16 Jul 1999

CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. WONG CHAK KUNG t/a HUNG FUNG ELECTRONICS & TOYS MFY. CO.

Citation

CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. WONG CHAK KUNG t/a HUNG FUNG ELECTRONICS & TOYS MFY. CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA757/1999

Respondents failed to pay fines ordered for contempt, provided no evidence of inability to pay and no properly formulated proposal for instalment payments; accordingly the Court granted leave to issue writs of sequestration against each respondent for the respective fine amounts until payment.
13 Feb 1995

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD and OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG and OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6861/1993

On the balance of probabilities the 1st Plaintiff failed to make proper and full discovery of relevant documents ordered by the court, including documents in its possession or power, and provided no adequate explanation; this deliberate or culpable non-disclosure created a real and substantial risk that a fair trial was not possible, therefore the 1st Plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the 1st Defendant's summons; the other plaintiffs' actions are dismissed on their withdrawal.
5 Jan 1993

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA INC. AND ANOTHER v. UPS FAR EAST LIMITED

Citation

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF AMERICA INC. AND ANOTHER v. UPS FAR EAST LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7555/1988

Because the defendant clearly and blatantly breached the court's orders of 30 September 1992 by failing to destroy offending material and failing to remove its name from the Companies Register, the court granted the plaintiff leave to issue a writ of sequestration against the defendant, ordered committal of director Benny Leung to prison, and awarded costs against the defendant and Mr Leung on an indemnity basis.