Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Variation of freezing order

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2025

LI WAI CHUN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY LTD v. CHANG MAN SHAN YVETTE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6303
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA198/2023

The court granted a limited variation of the domestic and worldwide Mareva injunctions permitting HK$762,830 of the HK$1,669,985.78 net proceeds to be paid to the 1st Defendant for legal costs because the Plaintiff's pleaded proprietary claim could at most cover 12% of the proceeds (c. HK$200,398), leaving sufficient unencumbered funds; the 1st Defendant had, on the evidence, sufficiently shown lack of other available assets and that the purpose was to fund her defence rather than dissipate assets; the balance of justice therefore favored allowing the payment subject to compliance with the En…
4 Jun 2024

CONVOY COLLATERAL LTD v. CHO KWAI CHEE (also known as CHO KWAI CHEE ROY) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1510
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA399/2018

The court exercised its discretion to grant the variation because the Judgments are undisputed and predate the injunction, CCL (the plaintiff) consented, there is no overlapping question with the discharge summons, the variation removes uncertainty and protects the defendant from perceptions of preferential conduct, and no prejudice to CCL or other creditors was shown sufficient to refuse variation.
2 Sept 2022

ALLTOGETHER LAND CO LTD v. CHINA CREATE CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2726
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA883/2020

D1 failed to discharge the burden to show variation was just: it produced no reliable evidence of which securities were subject to the injunction, their holdings, liquidity, current market values, or that any surplus would remain after prior encumbrances and judgments; given the credible risk of insolvency, prior charges and the potential for undervalue or related‑party sales, permitting the sale would prejudice the judgment creditor; therefore the summons to vary the injunction was dismissed with costs.
21 Jul 2022

NATURAL DAIRY (NZ) HOLDINGS LTD (In Provisional Liquidation) v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2185
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2218/2017

The court found the summons was not an abuse of process given material changes and additional evidence, accepted that the 2nd defendant had demonstrated by sufficient evidence she had no other source of funds and that the purpose was not to dissipate assets, and thus varied the Mareva injunction to except HK$26,835,450 to pay part of future legal costs for the 2nd retrial to protect her right to a fair trial.
25 Mar 2022

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

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1211/2018

The court dismissed the 2nd Angel Bell application because the criminal-costs claim was premature and speculative (no committal concluded and trial dates uncertain; fee estimates unsupported and inflated), the police committal/unused materials were not shown to be relevant to the civil proceedings, and the applicant failed to establish lack of other assets while his credibility was questionable; accordingly no further variation of the Mareva order was justified.
28 Jul 2021

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

[2021] HKCFI 2132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB104/2017

The court varied the freezing order only to permit limited exceptions: HK$25,000 per month for the 2nd Respondent's administrative costs and a lump sum of HK$750,000 for future legal expenses. The court refused the large repayment to alleged creditors and the larger administrative and legal sums because the 2nd Respondent is insolvent, failed to prove the validity and ordinary‑course nature of the claimed debts, the creditors are closely associated with the Bankrupt creating a real risk of dissipation, and the evidential basis for quantum was unsatisfactory. The court allowed a modest legal e…
24 Jun 2020

WING ON FINANCE CO LTD v. CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1385
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2013

The court permitted variation of the Injunction Order in the form agreed by the parties: the specified judgment sum of HK$3,845,343 together with interest from 28 February 2015 and summary assessed costs of HK$12,000 were excluded from the assets subject to the Mareva injunction because Mareva relief is a personal restraint aimed at preventing dissipation and is not intended to thwart creditors' enforcement rights; adequate notice procedure was addressed.
11 Oct 2019

JUNSON DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. ZFT TRADING CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2685
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1781/2019

The court continued the injunction against all defendants until trial or further order but adjourned further argument and directed exchange of evidence in relation to the 5th and 14th defendants to clarify the nature of the claims against them; it required plaintiffs to provide fortification of HK$600,000 before the injunction as to the 5th and 14th defendants continued and varied the injunction to permit legitimate business expenses of HK$500,000 per month for those defendants.
16 Mar 2018

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MO SHAU WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 596
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA353/2013

The Company was joined as a limited intervener because it has an arguable proprietary interest in the frozen securities and therefore a question connected with the restorative relief arises between it, SFC and the defendants; the First Limb did not apply but the Second Limb and considerations of justice and convenience warranted limited joinder to receive notice of any variation applications to the Injunction Order.
11 Aug 2017

GALSWORTHY LTD v. LIU CHENG CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

GALSWORTHY LTD v. LIU CHENG CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA560/2017

The court concluded that the existing Mareva Orders froze assets substantially exceeding the Plaintiff's claimed US$60,000,000, creating manifest injustice; accordingly the order against the 2nd Defendant (Chik Sau Kam) was discharged and the variation application rendered superfluous, with costs reserved for further hearing.