Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Warrant for committal

  • 18 Jul 2023

    SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHEUNG CHI HO

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2099
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP598/2022

    The defendant posted two deliberate comments that breached the inter partes injunction; he was properly treated as having notice by substituted service and media reporting; he is liable for civil contempt; the court will issue a warrant for committal to secure his attendance for submissions on penalty and will set a long stop date after which the court may proceed to sentencing in his continued absence; costs are awarded on the indemnity scale.

  • 5 Mar 2019

    LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING CO LTD v. ZHANG LAN

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 618
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP585/2017

    Because the defendant committed a deliberate, continuing and serious breach of a Mareva injunction and disclosure order, demonstrated no remorse or intention to purge the contempt, and had ample opportunity to comply, a custodial sentence was necessary to enforce the court's orders and prevent asset dissipation; suspended sentence, fine or sequestration were inappropriate; accordingly an immediate custodial sentence of 12 months with an Order for Committal, Warrant for Committal and indemnity costs (certificate for 3 counsel) was imposed.

  • 5 Mar 2019

    LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHANG LAN

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 618
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP586/2017

    Because the defendant's breach was deliberate, intentional and continuing, she refused to attend the penalty hearing and gave no explanation or offer to purge contempt, and because the breach related to substantial undisclosed assets in the context of a Mareva injunction protecting a claim of US$286,815,887, the court concluded that alternatives (suspended sentence, sequestration, fine) were inappropriate and that an immediate custodial sentence of 12 months, together with committal and warrant, was necessary to enforce the order and uphold the administration of justice; costs ordered on an i…

  • 14 Feb 2017

    NAVIG8 CHEMICAL POOLS INC v. INDER SHARMA

    Citation
    NAVIG8 CHEMICAL POOLS INC v. INDER SHARMA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2885/2016

    The court was satisfied the Defendant was properly served and intentionally failed to attend the ordered examination on 27 September 2016, establishing contempt beyond reasonable doubt as to non-attendance; ambiguity in the orders and the qualified obligation to produce documents ('as far as possible') prevented a finding of contempt for non-production; accordingly the court issued a warrant for committal to secure the Defendant's attendance to determine penalty and awarded costs on an indemnity basis.