Gmt Industrial Ltd v. Fan Rong Li in Her Personal Capacity and in Her Capacity As the Administrator of the Estate of Selvam Selvaraj, Deceased

HCMP 1162/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2493

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1162 OF 2025

________________________

__________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

Introduction

1.By way of originating summons dated 14 July 2025 (“the OS”), P seeks to enforce a judgment of this court dated 22 May 2025 (“the Judgment”) in another action under HCA 546/2015 (“the HCA Action”) handed down after a 3-day trial. In a nutshell, by the Judgment, this court allowed P’s claim against D and ordered that D do account for and/or compensation P in the sum of US$7 million (“the Judgment Sum”) with interest thereon.   

2.By summons dated 31 October 2025 (“the Leave Summons”), D seeks leave to appeal against the Judgment out of time and a stay of execution pending appeal. By a decision dated 2 April 2026 (“the Leave Decision”), this court dismissed the Leave Summons with costs to P.

3.D has made a renewed application for leave to the Court of Appeal by summons dated 8 April 2026 (“the Renewed Application”) under CAMP 106/2026. At the same time, D applies for a stay of execution of the Judgment pending appeal.

4.In these proceedings, D is being sued personally as administrator of the estate of Mr Selvam Selvaraj (“the Estate”) and recipient of assets from the Estate in aid of enforcement of the Judgment. P claims for:

(1)  An inventory and account order pursuant to the statutory rights under section 56 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance, Cap 10 (“PAO”) against D as administrator of the Estate;

(2)  A personal payment order pursuant to equitable jurisdiction against D as administrator of the Estate and as a beneficiary having received substantial monies from the Estate; and

(3)  Sale and vesting orders pursuant to statutory rights under section 67 of the PAO against D as a recipient of 5 real properties in Hong Kong from the Estate including her current residence for nil consideration.  

5.D opposes this application. By summons dated 6 November 2025 (“the Stay Summons”), D makes an application for an “interim-interim stay” of these proceedings pending the determination of the Leave Summons and, if it is dismissed, the Renewed Application.

6.This is the substantive hearing of both the OS and the Stay Summons. Mr Chain SC leading Mr Law appears for P and Mr C Y Li SC leading Mr Kwok represents D.

7.Logically, I should dispose of the Stay Summons first. In this Decision, I shall adopt the abbreviations used in the Judgment unless otherwise stated.

Applicable legal principles

8.For the applicable legal principles governing D’s present application for an interim-interim stay, Mr Li places heavy reliance on Aggressive Construction Co Ltd v Director of Buildings [2025] 3 HKLRD 596 where Cheng J had this to say in §20:

“Interim-interim relief is meant to be an urgent temporary stop-gap measure, in circumstances such that the court has to do practical justice on the balance of fairness even though it may not have sufficient time or a fair opportunity to consider an application for interlocutory relief fully. The Court conducts a multi-faceted assessment; factors that may be taken into account include the merits, the effect of the grant or refusal of the relief, and the subject matter at stake. The Court will take whichever course appears to carry the lower risk of injustice if it should turn out to be wrong.”

9.Mr Li impresses upon this court that the test for an interim-interim stay is less stringent as it was meant to be a “stop-gap measure” pending the other court’s determination of the substantive interim stay, which has also seized the entire matter on appeal (or leave to appeal).

10.Mr Chain draws my attention to §19 in Aggressive Construction preceding the paragraph cited to me by Mr Li. There, Cheng J set out the principles relating to an application for a stay of execution of a judgment pending appear summarised by Cheung JA in Fung Shing Chung v Choi King Hung [2024] HKCA 1021. The cardinal rule is that the existence of merely an arguable appeal is the minimum requirement before a court would even begin to consider granting a stay: §20(2).  

11.I believe the legal principles are actually beyond dispute. Where possible, the court should invariably form a preliminary view on the merits of the intended appeal or the ongoing appeal. The strength or weakness of such an appeal always has a bearing on the question as to whether the court should exercise its discretion to grant a stay.

12.This court has already undertaken the assessment of the merits of D’s intended appeal from the Judgment and her application for a stay in the Leave Decision. D’s application for a stay in the HCA Action was rejected primarily on the ground that her intended appeal is wholly unmeritorious. D is now applying for another stay which is not materially different from the one that she has applied for previously. D is literally having a second bite at the cherry.

13.I cannot accept Mr Li’s submission that lesser weight should be given to the merit of D’s intended appeal in the HCA Action. There is no reason why this court should ignore my own conclusion on the merits of D’s intended appeal and D’s previous stay application in the consideration of the present application.

14.The OS proceedings are for the enforcement of the Judgment. Absent an arguable appeal against the Judgment, there is really no basis for a stay of the enforcement proceedings.

15.However, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the parties would soon complete filing of their respective written statements to the Court of Appeal for the purpose of the Renewed Application. The Court of Appeal would thereafter determine D’s renewed application for a stay of execution on the Judgment. Such a determination would obviously provide a definitive answer to the Stay Summons.

16.In the circumstances, I am prepared to grant an interim stay to hold the ring pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of the Renewed Application on conditions so as to minimise risk of injustice. I am of the view that conditions have to be imposed in view of the lack of merits of D’s intended appeal.

17.Mr Chain has helpfully provided this court with two proposed orders for a stay on different conditions for my consideration. I have taken into account all the proposed conditions and the evidence adduced by D. I come to the following conclusion.

18.First, for the inventory and account order sought by P, I opine that D should avoid delivery to P or its solicitors a full inventory and account on oath with all relevant documents exhibited, of the Estate and of her dealings therewith within 28 days.

19.I fail to see how D would be seriously prejudiced if she is to give such an inventory regardless of the outcome of the Renewed Application. I am not persuaded by D’s evidence that there is a confidentiality issue. In any event, P can use any confidential information contained therein for the purpose of these proceedings only.

20.D makes hollow allegations that D would be hugely and irreparably prejudiced by the time and costs to be spent on the preparation of the inventory. She alleges that the Estate is enormous and it mostly consists of cash. She says that it has around HK$190 million in cash alone. Yet, she has produced no accounting evidence to substantiate this allegation and she merely relies on the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities to the Letters of Administration. I am unable to accept that the alleged size of the Estate can be a valid ground to avoid giving an inventory in the absence of an arguable appeal.

21.For the payment condition, I am not inclined to demand D to pay the full amount of Judgment Sum and all the interest thereon.

22.I believe that it is reasonable that as a condition of an interim stay, D should pay into court a sum of HK$28,000,000 within 35 days as security. This amount represents approximately half of the Judgment Sum and only a small fraction of the cash-rich Estate. I refuse to accept that D has difficulties in liquidate the assets of the Estate to meet the payment condition when she at the same time tells this court on oath that there is a huge amount of cash in the Estate.

23.Further, as agreed by Mr Li, an interim stay should be made conditional upon D’s undertaking not to deal with the properties set out in the Schedule to the OS (“the Properties”) by way of either disposal of or creation of any encumbrances on the Properties.

Conclusion and costs

24.For the reasons given, I make an order that upon the undertaking of D not to deal with the Properties by way of either disposal of or creation of any encumbrances on the Properties, there be an interim stay of the present proceedings pending the determination of the Renewed Application on the condition that (1) D do within 35 days deliver to P or its solicitors a full inventory and account on oath with all relevant documents exhibited, of the Estate and of her dealings therewith and (2) D do pay into court a sum of HK$28,000,000 within 35 days from the date of this Decision as security.

25.I further order that there be liberty to apply.

26.As an order nisi, I order that costs of both the Stay Summons and the OS be reserved.

27.Lastly, I thank Mr Li, Mr Chain, Mr Law and Mr Kwok for their assistance in this matter.

Mr Christopher Chain SC and Mr Paul Law, instructed by Oldham, Li & Nie, for the Plaintiff

Mr C Y Li SC and Mr Kenny Kwok, instructed by Tam, Pun & Yipp, for the Defendant