Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay pending criminal proceedings

Legal area

Court

28 Apr 2022

THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK v. JOHNNY MONDESIR

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 504
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2577/2017

Leave to serve out under Order 11(1)(p) was properly granted because the bank's funds were transferred out of the bank (the Plaintiff) by a fraudulent instruction such that the Defendant's enrichment was at the Plaintiff's expense; service at the Ontario address was valid under Canadian law; the Defendant failed to show a real prospect of success on the merits or that the civil proceedings should be stayed pending his criminal appeal; fresh affidavit (Mondesir 6th) was admitted de bene esse but did not undermine service or jurisdiction; accordingly the appeal and adjournment application were…
15 Oct 2019

YEUNG SIU YUNG v. FAN PUI WAN, MARGARET AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2460
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1211/2018

The court refused to stay the civil proceedings because the defendant failed to demonstrate a real risk of prejudice to the criminal process or of asset dissipation, the Plaintiff had a prima facie case and interim relief (Mareva injunction) was in place to protect any assets; privilege against self‑incrimination did not mandate a stay at the interlocutory stage.
31 Mar 2017

TALENT FOCUS EDUCATION CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN PO CHUN

Citation

TALENT FOCUS EDUCATION CENTRE LTD AND OTHERS v. CHAN PO CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1439/2015

The summonses for exchange of witness statements were adjourned sine die with liberty to restore rather than being withheld permanently because the plaintiffs failed to place admissible evidence showing real and specific prejudice from exchange (their timetabling questionnaire was insufficient), their pleadings already disclosed their case (weakening any right to silence), and discovery and particulars remain incomplete; the proper course is to revisit the issue after progress is reported.
9 May 2011

BURBERRY LTD AND ANOTHER v. POLO SANTA ROBERTA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BURBERRY LTD AND ANOTHER v. POLO SANTA ROBERTA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1617/2010

The court refused a stay because the criminal trial was at an early stage, unlikely to attract juror‑affecting publicity (trial in District Court without jury), no demonstrable real danger that disclosure in the civil proceedings would cause a miscarriage of justice, and the interests of the plaintiffs in timely resolution outweighed the defendants' claim to shelter their defence; however, the court granted a 21‑day extension to permit D2 and D3 to file a substantive defence, and dismissed the plaintiffs' application for default judgment.
5 Aug 2010

CHINA SCIENCES CONSERVATIONAL POWER LTD v. CHAT TAT CHEE

Citation

CHINA SCIENCES CONSERVATIONAL POWER LTD v. CHAT TAT CHEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA870/2009

The stay application was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a realistic and cogent risk of injustice or miscarriage of justice in the criminal proceedings if the civil actions proceeded; the prosecution had closed its case and there was no evidence that disclosure in the civil actions would prejudice the criminal trial. Civil claims must not be stayed indefinitely without good reason.
7 Nov 2007

T v. SHIU WAI TUEN

Citation

T v. SHIU WAI TUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2229/2007

Refused the Defendant's application for a stay and continued the Mareva injunction until trial or further order because the Plaintiff had shown a highly arguable case and a real risk of dissipation; the defendant's right to silence did not, at this interlocutory stage, justify depriving the Plaintiff of injunctive protection.
13 Apr 2005

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. JAMES HENRY TING

Citation

THE JOINT & SEVERAL LIQUIDATORS OF KONG WAH HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) v. JAMES HENRY TING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV305/2004

Appeals dismissed because s.33(1) Theft Ordinance prevents answers given in winding-up examinations from being used in prosecutions under that Ordinance, s.65 Evidence Ordinance provides protection where appropriate for other criminal exposure, the respondent failed to demonstrate a reasonable apprehension of self-incrimination on the remaining heads, and practical scheduling meant the criminal trial would likely be dealt with before the s.221 examination; thus no stay or dismissal of the examination was justified.
9 May 2000

SINGH HARWINDER AND ANOTHER v. SINGH GURMAIL AND OTHERS

Citation

SINGH HARWINDER AND ANOTHER v. SINGH GURMAIL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2055/2000

The alleged wrong was characterized as a private affront to plaintiffs' individual rights, not a public wrong under Gouriet, so Gouriet did not bar injunctive relief; therefore an interim non-molestation injunction was properly continued until further order; no stay was ordered because defendants did not properly establish prejudice from parallel criminal proceedings.