Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undertaking in damages

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2024

CHAN CHI FAI v. HIP WO ENGINEERING TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1931
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1461/2023

The injunction was continued in varied form because the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case, the defendant has assets in jurisdiction and there is a real risk of dissipation given timing and unexplained transfers to related companies; failure to follow Practice Directions and delay were considered but not decisive; the balance of convenience favors continuation subject to variation to conform with PD11.2 and appropriate safeguards (ceiling, disclosure, security, specified exceptions).
7 Jun 2024

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. SZE CHING LAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 524
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/2024

The court concluded that §1 of the plaintiffs' summons seeking a mandatory interim injunction lacked sufficient merit because damages were an adequate remedy given the SFC's powers under the Takeovers Code, the heightened merits threshold for a mandatory interim injunction was not met on the materials before the judge, and therefore costs of the inter partes application and the present costs application should be awarded to the 1st defendant while the plaintiffs' claim to costs of the ex parte application was refused; costs below are to be taxed by the taxing master rather than summarily asse…
20 Nov 2023

IDEMITSU CHEMICALS (HONG KONG) CO. LTD v. YANQING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA148/2020

The plaintiff proved the elements of unjust enrichment by evidence showing the funds were transferred by fraud and received by the 21st and 24th defendants; the defendants failed to discharge the burden of pleading and proving any defence (bona fide purchaser for value or change of position) by producing witness statements or documents as ordered; therefore summary judgment was entered for recovery of the sums received and the counterclaims were struck out because the undertaking in damages does not create a separate cause of action.
10 Nov 2021

SHENZHEN HINA NEW ECONOMY EQUITY INVESTMENT FUND PARTNERSHIP (LTD PARTNERSHIP) v. UNIPAX PROPERTIES, LLC

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3371
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP298/2021

The court exercised its discretion to vary the order nisi and ordered the Defendant to pay 60% of the costs of the interim injunction application because the Plaintiff had overall succeeded on key issues (material non-disclosure, adequacy of damages and balance of convenience) while the Defendant only succeeded on fortification of the cross-undertaking; the court affirmed that interlocutory costs need not follow the main arbitration and may be ordered immediately based on the merits of the interlocutory application.
15 Oct 2021

RE NEXT DIGITAL LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3087
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW359/2021

There was a good prima facie case that it was expedient in the public interest to wind up the company and there was urgent necessity to appoint provisional liquidators to preserve and manage assets, respond to regulators and litigations, and prevent dissipation; accordingly the court appointed provisional liquidators and dispensed with a cross‑undertaking in damages.
1 Aug 2018

PATRICK COWLEY AND ANOTHER (The Joint and Several Trustees in Bankruptcy of the Property of the Bankrupt) v. ALL POWERFUL HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1802
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB104/2017

The court granted Chabra (freezing) injunctions against APHL and APIL and limited disclosure against APIL because the Trustees established a good arguable case that the 2015 share transfer was at an undervalue and made with intent to defraud creditors, that Mr Lau retained substantive control of the trust and companies creating a real risk of dissipation, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the assets for creditors; the trustees must give a cross-undertaking limited to HK$40,000,000, indemnified by HSBC; the corporate veil need not be pierced at this stage and lawful winding up…
31 Oct 2017

YANFULL INVESTMENTS LTD v. DATUK OOI KEE LIAN

Citation

YANFULL INVESTMENTS LTD v. DATUK OOI KEE LIAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV29/2017

Leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court held that (i) the alleged undertakings were made to the court and could not found a deceit action by Yanfull and there was no evidence of detrimental reliance by Yanfull; (ii) the Consent Judgment did not alter accrual or remedy facts because the causes of action for malicious prosecution and abuse of process accrued on discontinuance on 4 February 2008 and are therefore time-barred; and (iii) the court was entitled to strike out the action of its own motion as an abuse of process and the forum non conveniens arguments did not justify leave to serve ou…
2 Jun 2017

YANFULL INVESTMENTS LTD v. DATUK OOI KEE LIANG

Citation

YANFULL INVESTMENTS LTD v. DATUK OOI KEE LIANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV114/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions were either academic, fact‑specific, or not reasonably arguable, and because the underlying claims were correctly struck out as time‑barred; consequentially the application for leave failed and costs were awarded to the defendant.
23 Jan 2017

CYYC v. TVKT

Citation

CYYC v. TVKT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14649/2014

The court refused the broad freezing injunction because the applicant did not establish a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied by further disposals: existing undertakings, prior orders and proceeds paid into court, coupled with explanatory evidence for withdrawals and market losses, meant the objective threshold for a Mareva‑type injunction over all respondent accounts was not met; the interim injunction was discharged and paragraphs 1 and 2 dismissed; paragraph 3 (charitable donations) was agreed by consent.
17 Jul 2015

TOP GAINS MINERALS MACAO COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LTD v. TL RESOURCES PTE. LTD.

Citation

TOP GAINS MINERALS MACAO COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE LTD v. TL RESOURCES PTE. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1622/2015

The court continued the ex parte Mareva injunction because, on the materials before it and absent defendant submissions, the plaintiff had shown a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation; continuation is subject to payment into court or provision of a bank guarantee of HK$300,000 within 14 days, failing which the order will be discharged, and the defendant is at liberty to apply to discharge the order on any ground including material non-disclosure.