Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Writ of fieri facias

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

YAN MEI and YAN DONG the Joint and Several Administrators of the Estate of FONG LAP CHUNG GEORGE, Deceased AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAP SHAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5287
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1562/2022

The court refused to grant an unless order that would dismiss the plaintiffs' claim because the defendant had not first sought less draconian enforcement measures and unless orders should be a last resort; nevertheless, because the 1st Plaintiff repeatedly breached the interim payment order and provided no adequate excuse, the court ordered payment of the outstanding sum of HK$460,538 within 21 days and refused the plaintiffs' application to file further affirmation.
8 Jul 2024

林秀霞，the Committee of the estate of 李英，a mentally incapacitated person (pursuant to the Order of the Honourable Madam Justice Marlene Ng made on 3 November 2021 under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap 136）對林鎮星

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1047
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP128/2022

Order 58 did not provide a basis to appeal the registry-issued writs because those writs were not decisions of hearing officers but registry issuances based on earlier orders; the defendant had no proper or timely basis to challenge the underlying hearing officer orders (previous appeals were dismissed or the proposed appeals were substantially delayed); absent evidence that the plaintiff instructed or interfered with the sheriff, the plaintiff is not liable for the sheriff's execution of the writs. Accordingly the defendant's applications/appeals were without merit and were dismissed and cos…
10 Oct 2023

ENOTECA ITALIANA LTD v. IL BEL PAESE LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1478
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3293/2022

The Judge affirmed the Master's order: the plaintiff proved due service by registered post so the judgment was regularly obtained, but on the material before the court the defendant demonstrated a defence that could well be established such that the default judgment should be set aside; the condition that the defendant pay HK$264,453.20 into court was appropriate as a security measure; costs follow the event.
11 Nov 2020

RE BEST TARGET ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2883
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW293/2020

Leave under section 183 was granted because the Company had vacated the premises, the applicant gave an undertaking to pay proceeds of sale of the chattels to the liquidators if the company is wound up, and the Official Receiver raised no objection; under those safeguards execution of the writ of fieri facias did not amount to the prohibited distraint identified in Re Union (VTex).
21 Jul 2014

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PARTRICK MICHAEL

Citation

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PARTRICK MICHAEL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV127/2014

The summons for stay was dismissed because the defendant's appeal lacked sufficient merit to constitute a 'strong appeal', the defendant admitted default so alleged accounting errors would not defeat entitlement to possession, the subsequent affidavit evidence did not constitute new evidence invalidating the Order 88 judgment, and Order 47 rule 1 does not prevent enforcement of the possession order; accordingly no proper basis existed to stay execution.
26 Jul 2012

CHOW HOI PING v. CASSON CITY MONEY EXCHANGE CO, LTD

Citation

CHOW HOI PING v. CASSON CITY MONEY EXCHANGE CO, LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ336/2012

Claimant failed to discharge burden to prove he retained beneficial ownership of the seized banknotes; the notes were commingled and unidentifiable after delivery to the defendant who contracted to remit the funds and thus had acquired possession and beneficial interest; execution at the branch where the notes were found was valid; claimant's interpleader claim dismissed and costs ordered against claimant.
5 Feb 2007

HAHN-SHIN MICHELINE, SUCKHI v. THE GOVERNMENT OF HKSAR BAILIFF [OPERATION SECTION]

Citation

HAHN-SHIN MICHELINE, SUCKHI v. THE GOVERNMENT OF HKSAR BAILIFF [OPERATION SECTION]
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1499/2006

The action was properly struck out because s4(5) Crown Proceedings Ordinance provides an absolute bar to claims against the Government for acts in connection with execution of judicial process, the Bailiff Office is not a legal entity and therefore cannot be sued, no reasonable cause of action was pleaded against any proper defendant, and accordingly leave to appeal out of time was refused; the costs assessment was reasonable and that appeal was dismissed.
5 Mar 1992

THE KWANGTUNG PROVINCIAL BANK v CHEUNG TIN MING AND OTHERS

Citation

THE KWANGTUNG PROVINCIAL BANK v CHEUNG TIN MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1826/1986

Order 47 r.1 is limited to staying execution by writ of fieri facias and does not empower the Court to grant a stay that effectively forgives a judgment debt; consequently the Master's instalment stay was excessive and must be set aside; the appeal is allowed and no stay is granted.
19 Jan 1988

LOUIS PAO v. CHAN SHUET CHU

Citation

LOUIS PAO v. CHAN SHUET CHU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV68/1987

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings and discretion: section 88(b) applies to distress for rent and cannot be extended to writs of fieri facias; Rule 7(1) Order 47 governs fieri facias and contains no tool-exception; the judge did not err in refusing further evidence at review nor in his assessment of which items were proven on the premises; appeal dismissed.
4 Jul 1985

CHEUNG TUNG LEUNG t/a TIN LUNG ELECTRIC-PLATING FTY v. KWAN TAI WATCH CASE FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHEUNG TUNG LEUNG t/a TIN LUNG ELECTRIC-PLATING FTY v. KWAN TAI WATCH CASE FACTORY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7474/1984

Priority to the proceeds of execution is determined by the order in which writs of fi fa are delivered to the bailiff; a sale effected under a later-delivered writ does not defeat the prior claim of a creditor whose writ was delivered earlier, and the claimant with the first-delivered writ is entitled to the proceeds.