Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Supplemental orders

  • 8 Aug 2014

    HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV159/2014

    The Court allowed the defendants appeal and set aside paragraph (2) of the trial order that granted specific performance of the S&P Agreement because the Security and Set-Off Agreement was not supported by consideration and the S&P Agreement, viewed in context with the Memorandum and Supplemental Agreement, operated as security (and was a sham) such that specific performance that would vest unencumbered ownership was inappropriate; consequently the alternative order for specific performance was erroneous and must be set aside; the plaintiffs appeal against refusal of supplemental orders was…

  • 8 Aug 2014

    HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1799/2014

    Order (2) for specific performance was set aside because the Security & Set-Off Agreement (which gave rise to the Memorandum, Supplemental Agreement and S&P) lacked consideration and the S&P operated as security/a sham rather than a genuine sale; accordingly specific performance was inappropriate and the remedies were cumulative (debt plus security) not an alternative conveyance without payment.

  • 10 Jul 2014

    HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER

    Citation
    HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2140/2006

    The court recognized its inherent jurisdiction to make supplemental orders but refused the plaintiffs' Notice of Motion because the relief sought exceeded supplemental powers: specific performance was an alternative to a monetary judgment and no timescale had been fixed to trigger it, the mortgagee sale raised issues that could be addressed in interpleader proceedings or by discharging specific performance and seeking damages; supplemental orders could not be made against Choy because the specific performance order was against Raking only; defendants' proposed amendments to the judgment were…

  • 10 Jul 2014

    HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER

    Citation
    HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1093/2006

    The application for supplemental orders was refused because the relief sought went beyond correcting an accidental omission; specific performance had been ordered only against Raking and not Choy; plaintiffs had not sought post-judgment directions or a time for completion so supplemental orders directing payment of sale proceeds or compensating for mortgage discharge would amount to an effective assessment or re-allocation of damages beyond the court's correction jurisdiction; plaintiffs retain remedies (interpleader proceedings, discharge of specific performance and inquiry for damages) and…

  • 10 Jul 2014

    HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1242/2006

    The court refused the plaintiffs' supplemental relief because the orders sought went beyond permissible supplemental orders and effectively amounted to an assessment of damages without inquiry; specific performance was an alternative remedy ordered only against Raking and not against Choy, so no supplemental order for the plaintiffs' proposed payments could be made against Choy; plaintiffs retain other remedies (interpleader proceedings, discharge of specific performance and inquiry for damages); the defendants' summons to amend the sealed judgment wording was dismissed because the wording re…

  • 12 Jul 2007

    L v. C

    Citation
    L v. C
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV169/2006

    The court exercised its discretion to make a supplemental order permitting the wife six months from the date of judgment (until 25 November 2007) to vacate and deliver possession of the property, finding the demand to vacate within days unreasonable and that six months was reasonable; the stay of execution as to payment was unnecessary because the sum had been paid. The court granted liberty to apply to preserve parties' positions and allocated costs: husband entitled to costs for the application seeking deferral of the lump sum, wife entitled to costs regarding the property application.