Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment enforcement

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2024

ASPAROUH IANEV DIMITROV as administrator of the estate of KALOIAN IANEV DIMITROV (Deceased) v. DOMINIC TAK MING LAU also known as LAU TAK MING

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1011
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2017

The defendant allowed the appeal to lie dormant for over six years, repeatedly failed to comply with registrar directions, did not file a sworn opposition or provide a Hong Kong service address, and proffered explanations which the court found inadequate; the delay was inordinate and inexcusable and amounted to an abuse of process causing prejudice to the administration of justice, therefore the appeal is properly struck out and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
11 Sept 2023

RE WINTAC (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2323
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW164/2023

The Company failed to comply with the statutory demand and did not discharge the burden of showing a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or any valid ground to adjourn or stay the petition; there was no credible evidence that the Petitioner held security for the debt; accordingly the Company was deemed insolvent and a usual winding-up order was made.
21 Jul 2023

HONG KONG TOPKEY LTD v. WINTAC (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1926
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA667/2022

The interim-interim Mareva injunction was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate urgency: the Award dated 11 April 2022 and related matters were long known, the plaintiff delayed from January 2023 and otherwise pursued alternative processes (including a bankruptcy petition), making the urgency self-induced; accordingly interim freezing relief was not justified and the summons was adjourned for full argument with directions.
12 May 2022

東盈投資有限公司對陳寶榮

Citation

[2022] HKCA 653
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/2020

Defendant's submissions were case‑specific challenges to the trial evidence and did not raise issues of great and general or public importance nor any exceptional 'other reasons' to warrant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal; consequently leave was refused and no stay of execution was granted, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
26 Feb 2014

RE LIU YI FANG

Citation

RE LIU YI FANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB5613/2013

The court held that bankruptcy jurisdiction existed because the debtor maintained a place of residence in Hong Kong (24D and other addresses supported by company records and use of SHK address); the creditor had taken all reasonable steps to bring the statutory demand to the debtor's attention (personal attempts, letters to solicitors, investigators and newspaper advertisement) and substituted service was justified because the debtor evaded service; allegations of material non‑disclosure failed; and adjournment pending appeal was refused because no stay of execution was sought.
10 Oct 2006

FIRST SECURITIES (HK) LTD v. HO YUK CHUN

Citation

FIRST SECURITIES (HK) LTD v. HO YUK CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA304/2003

The court accepted the plaintiff's witnesses and expert evidence that the transactions were completed as Free of Payment pursuant to signed settlement instructions and that the plaintiff, as settlement agent, received no sale proceeds and had no duty to account; the defendant's evidence was found inconsistent, implausible and insufficient to discharge her burden, so the counterclaim failed.
30 Sept 2005

RE TAI CHI WAH

Citation

RE TAI CHI WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB11592/2004

The court held that a scheme of arrangement sanctioned under section 166 does not operate to release co-debtors who are jointly and severally liable; accordingly there was no valid ground to adjourn the bankruptcy petition and a bankruptcy order was made against Mr Tai.
20 Feb 2002

WONG POON CHAN LAW & CO. (a firm) v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHERRY MANSION AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG POON CHAN LAW & CO. (a firm) v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CHERRY MANSION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6395/1998

On the objective assessment of contemporaneous correspondence and notes, no agreement (express or implied) existed for the 2nd Defendant to waive its own costs; therefore the Master was correct to strike out the action and dismiss the summons, and the application to cross-examine was properly refused as it would serve no useful purpose.
12 Mar 2001

KWOK SIU WING v. MODERN PARK LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWOK SIU WING v. MODERN PARK LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11922/1998

The judge found on the balance of probabilities that a telephone conversation on 16 February 1998 resulted in agreement to extend the completion dates to 30 June 1998 and that Mr Chan agreed to extend his personal guarantee to that date; accordingly Mr Chan was liable to repay the plaintiffs' deposits and related claims.