Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Worldwide freezing order

Legal area

Court

18 Sept 2025

TECHTERYX LTD v. LEGACY TRUST COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4023
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1906/2023

The court dismissed the interim receiver application because an effective protective regime (DIFC proprietary injunction, worldwide freezing order and disclosure) already preserved the status quo and there was no demonstrated utility or superiority in appointing a receiver over FDT's interest; receivership would not secure additional proprietary effect over Aria Fund assets, risked disproportionate prejudice to FDT, and could be fruitless. The proprietary injunctions against Glass Door and Legacy were refused because the plaintiff failed to adduce reasonable tracing evidence that USD 15.5M re…
5 Sept 2025

FLAME ASIA RESOURCES PTE LTD v. FULL IDEA TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4139
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1483/2025

The Court continued the interim worldwide freezing and disclosure order for six months because Flame demonstrated a good arguable case on unlawful means conspiracy and procuring breach of contract, showed that there were insufficient assets in Hong Kong to satisfy the arbitral awards while material assets existed abroad, established a real risk of dissipation based on the timing and nature of the Three Transfers and the defendants' conduct, and because the balance of convenience favoured continuation to preserve the claimant's ability to enforce the awards.
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.
15 Mar 2021

PACIFIC BULK SUPRAMAX CO LTD v. BINTAN MINING CORPORATION

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 680
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1190/2020

On the evidence viewed holistically the plaintiff established a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation: the court found deliberate deception, breaches of disclosure orders and undertakings, unexplained depletion of Hong Kong funds and a Solomon Islands land-registration revocation undermining the value of BMSI; accordingly the domestic Mareva was converted to a worldwide Mareva, ancillary disclosure including details of dispositions from 1 March 2020 was ordered, and the Mareva ceiling was varied to US$8,114,052.44 with costs nisi to the plaintiff.
29 Oct 2020

HUOBI ASIA LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEN BOLIANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2750
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA415/2020

The court held the June injunction was not a proprietary injunction but only a Mareva injunction because the indorsement on the writ at the time was a monetary claim and no tracing or proprietary relief was pleaded when the injunction was granted; consequently the plaintiffs were not entitled to the wide worldwide disclosure order seeking the whereabouts of the USDT and the application for that disclosure order was dismissed.
15 Oct 2020

PACIFIC BULK SUPRAMAX CO LTD v. BINTAN MINING CORPORATION

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1190/2020

Application dismissed because, although there is a good arguable case and insufficient assets in Hong Kong with assets outside the jurisdiction, the evidence (certificate of tangible asset value showing substantial fixed assets of the subsidiary and undertakings regarding shares and receivables) negated a real risk of unjustified dissipation such as would justify a worldwide Mareva; non‑compliance with the disclosure order was noted but, on the whole evidence, did not tip the balance in favour of granting worldwide relief.
15 Jan 2020

SHI HONG AND OTHERS v. CHAN MAN KIT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2313/2019

The court refused to continue the ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction because plaintiffs failed to make full and frank disclosure and made deliberate misstatements, failed to comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of s21M HCO and Order 29 rule 8A, failed to establish a good arguable case (in particular Shi had no basis against Nicholas and Xu/Wellgo had no Hong Kong causes of action), and failed to show a real risk of dissipation or exceptional urgency or secrecy justifying ex parte relief.
31 Jan 2019

XING FA (HONG KONG) IMP. & EXP. LTD v. SUNGSAN INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 271
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2511/2018

The court held that the plaintiff established a good arguable case in money had and received rooted in a fraudulent scheme involving forged documents; the defendant was a participant and had at least been enriched; there was a real risk of dissipation of assets given the payment arrangements and defendant's conduct; the plaintiff did not commit material non-disclosure sufficient to vitiate the ex parte order. Therefore the worldwide Injunction Order was extended on similar terms until trial or further order and the defendant's application to discharge or vary the injunction was dismissed with…
5 Apr 2017

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM) v. CHRIS AU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (A FIRM) v. CHRIS AU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3030/2015

The court reduced the claimed hourly rates for ML and RH to HK$2,500 and HK$2,200 respectively, allowed HE at HK$2,000, found some claimed hours excessive (notably HE's 37 hours and ML's 33.25 hours) and, after adjustments for proportionality and duplication, fixed summary assessed costs payable to the plaintiff at HK$353,000 distributed across identified heads.
3 Mar 2017

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (a firm) v. CHRIS AU AND ANOTHER

Citation

HERBERT SMITH FREEHILLS (a firm) v. CHRIS AU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3030/2015

The court found genuine urgency for the ex parte Mareva injunction due to the imminent settlement and real risk of dissipation; although the plaintiff omitted to disclose the possibility of applying for substitution in the bankruptcy proceedings (a material omission), that omission was innocent and outweighed by other considerations including the plaintiff's intention to enforce and the defendant's conduct; the court exercised its discretion to continue the worldwide Mareva injunction in amended form, downsized the frozen amount to HK$1,952,977.76, removed specified schedule items, and grante…