郭莉 v. 刘君林

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1049/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 March 2026.

1. Before me is the Amended Summons filed and taken out by the Intervener on 2 February 2026 (the “ Amended Summons ”) for varying the interlocutory injunction granted by Mr Recorder Steward Wong SC on 18 August 2022 to cater for the possible vesting order applied for by the Intervener in HCMP 176/2026. In particular, the variation sought would effectively carve out an exception so that money now being under restrained by the injunction could be released for satisfying the vesting order, if it w

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCA 1049/2022[2026] HKCFI 1617
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Mar 2026
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1049/2022

[2026] HKCFI 1617

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1049 OF 2022

__________________

BETWEEN

  郭莉 Plaintiff
  and  
  刘君林 Defendant
  晋佳佳 Intervener

__________________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Gary CC Lam in Chambers (Open to Public)
Date of Hearing: 17 March 2026
Date of Decision: 17 March 2026

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

I.  INTRODUCTION

1.Before me is the Amended Summons filed and taken out by the Intervener on 2 February 2026 (the “Amended Summons”) for varying the interlocutory injunction granted by Mr Recorder Steward Wong SC on 18 August 2022 to cater for the possible vesting order applied for by the Intervener in HCMP 176/2026. In particular, the variation sought would effectively carve out an exception so that money now being under restrained by the injunction could be released for satisfying the vesting order, if it would be granted in HCMP 176/2026.

2.In my view, the same procedure in Rong Wei v Chiu Sung Fai also known as Allan Chiu also known as Chiu Sung Fai Allan and Another [2020] HKCFI 692, a case on how to handle an application to vary an interlocutory injunction when there is at the same time a parallel application for a garnishee order, should be adopted. This procedure would ensure that all interested parties would have a chance to make submissions. Thus, in my view, the applicant for the vesting order should inform the Court that an application for varying the injunction for the vesting order being sought has been or will be made, and invite the Court to make directions so that both applications can be dealt with together by the same Court at the same time.

II.  CONCLUSION

3.Therefore, I adjourn the Amended Summons to be heard substantively together with the Originating Summons in HCMP 176/2026 on a date to be fixed together with the Originating Summons, with costs reserved.

  (Gary CC Lam)
Deputy High Court Judge

Ms Ingrid Yip, instructed by Wellington Legal LLP, for the Plaintiff

Mr Edward KH Ng, instructed by Katherine Chan Law Office, for the Defendant

Ms Winky Wong, instructed by Munros, for the Intervener