16 October 2025
Hong Kong Courts Back Swift Enforcement of Rent Arrears Judgments
In our previous article, we have discussed the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Jadespring Ltd v. Rise Top Asset Management Ltd and Another [2025] HKCFI 2310, where the Court of First Instance allowed an appeal to set aside a stay order for a summary judgment granted for rent arrears. In the recent Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal decisions of Jadespring Limited (as trustee/agent for Dah Sing Bank) v Rise Top Asset Management Ltd & Wong Wai Sing [2025] HKCFI 4498 and [2025] HKCA 902, both Courts confirmed the requirements of stay of execution of judgment pending appeal. DLA Piper represented the landlord, succeeding in resisting the tenant’s applications for stay of execution of summary judgment for a sum of over HKD10 million. The DLA Piper team was led by Harris Chan (Partner), assisted by KC Tai (Of Counsel), Rita Chow (Senior Associate) and Jonathan Chan (Associate).
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS SINCE ORDER 14 JUDGMENT
Subsequent to the Court of First Instance’s judgment in our previous article, the defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal and sought a stay of execution pending the appeal. Both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal rejected the defendants’ applications for stay.
The Court of First Instance’s Refusal to Grant Stay
The Court of First Instance relied upon the principles from Fung Shing Chung v Choi King Hung [2024] HKCA 1021, noting that an order for stay of execution requires either (i) a strong appeal or (ii) if the appeal is just arguable then additional reasons as to why a stay is justified.
The Court of First Instance held that the defendants’ appeal grounds were unmeritorious and not reasonably arguable:
- The defendants challenged the plaintiff’s locus standi to commence these proceedings by arguing that such action required the bank’s prior written consent. The Court was not impressed noting that such seemed to be a regurgitation of their previous arguments which were already found to be “untenable” and thus dismissed by the Court in the previous occasion. The Court further noted that the relevant clause under the rental assignment does not speak of any requirement of prior written consent of the bank, which is to be contrasted with another clause under the rental assignment that has expressly provided for the requirement of prior written consent, and that supports the construction that no such consent is required for the plaintiff to institute proceedings.
- The defendants complained that the plaintiff failed to comply with the requirements under Order 14 rule 2(1) and (3) of the Rules of High Court to file and serve a fresh affidavit verifying the facts on the Amended Statement of Claim. The Court refuted the defendants’ complaint with reference to Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025 at 14/1/6: “[if] on close analysis the original affidavit is found to depose to all facts and matters necessary to prove the case pleaded, it may be allowed to stand”. The amendment made by the plaintiff was limited to pleading the agent or trustee capacity in which these proceedings were brought and the relevant “fact” or “matter” necessary to prove the plaintiff’s representative capacity was already deposed to or included in the plaintiff’s original affirmation evidence. Further, concurrent applications for summary judgment and amendment of the Statement of Claim (including an amendment brought only at the level of an appeal before a Judge in Chambers) are commonplace and can be dealt with together.
- The Court found the defendants’ complaint that the Court failed to grant an adjournment of the appeal hearing for the defendants to prepare their evidence in opposition to be entirely unmeritorious, given that at no stage did the defendants apply for any adjournment. To the contrary, the Court was informed categorically that the defendants chose not to file any evidence in their skeleton submissions. Indeed, at the hearing for stay of execution, counsel for the defendants confirmed that having taken instructions, there was no positive case to be put forward by the defendants in opposition and that the defendants were simply to put the plaintiff to strict proof of its claims.
- Regarding the defendants’ accusation in one of their appeal grounds that the Court had allegedly wrongfully assuming that any consequential amendments by the defendants of their Defence could not “affect in any way the decision” of the Court, the Court found that remarkable as it were the defendants who had chosen not to inform the Court of the terms of any proposed consequential amendments as per the Court’s direction, and that it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to turn around and complain that the Court had wrongly assumed that any such amendments would not have affected its decision. Indeed, at the hearing for stay of execution, counsel for the defendants frankly informed the Court that instructions had been taken from the defendants with the result being that no consequential amendments to the Defence were intended or would be sought.
The Court of First Instance further held that the purported additional reasons put up by the defendants to justify stay of execution appear to be without substance:
- In gist, the defendants filed evidence to show that the plaintiff has commenced winding-up proceedings against the first defendant to recover the judgment debt in these proceedings. It is alleged that such proceedings could bring serious financial ruins on the defendants when the first defendant has been involved in substantial negotiations with a third party in relation to a business deal with a potential commission to be shared between the defendants.
- However, that argument clearly breaks down when there is simply no evidence filed by the defendants to show that they could not afford to pay the judgment debt in the interim pending the appeal, especially since the defendants had rented or occupied two houses in the Peak for years and they had the financial capacity to be able to afford that.
THE COURT OF APPEAL’S REFUSAL TO GRANT STAY
The Court of Appeal was in complete agreement with the Court of First Instance decision that the grounds of appeal are not reasonably arguable, and thus the minimum requirement for granting stay of execution is not met. In any event, there is no additional reason for granting a stay even if the grounds of appeal were found to be arguable. First, there is no evidence on financial condition. Second, the document in support of the business deal with a potential commission to be shared between the defendants was merely a one-page letter. In this regard, the Cour of Appeal had considerable reservations. For such an enormous and lucrative business transaction, it was difficult to believe that it would be handled in such an informal manner with minimum information, terms and conditions. The Court of Appeal also could not see from the document how the winding up of the first defendant would affect its entitlement to the finder’s fee for the introduction of potential investors already made.
KEY TAKEAWAY
These decisions reinforce the importance of substantive appeal grounds, procedural compliance and credible supporting evidence when seeking a stay of execution.
First, filing an appeal does not automatically delay enforcement. A stay of execution will only be granted if the appeal is strong or supported by compelling additional reasons.
Second, the plaintiff’s success in relying on an existing affidavit highlights the importance of compliance with procedural rules and strategic use of existing evidence. Legal teams should ensure affidavits are drafted with foresight, anticipating potential amendments or challenges.
Third, courts require clear, credible evidence of financial incapacity to justify a stay. Mere assertions or informal documents will not suffice, while detailed financial records should be prepared to substantiate hardship claims if needed. The courts also took into account the defendants’ history of renting luxury properties and their apparent financial capacity. This shows that commercial context and credibility play a role in judicial decision-making, especially in rent recovery disputes.
Fourth, these decisions highlight the Courts’ willingness to scrutinize litigation conduct and the commercial realities behind financial hardship claims, illustrating how litigation strategy and conduct can significantly impact appeal prospects.
For landlords and creditors, these decisions reinforce the strength of summary judgment procedures when rent arrears are clear and defenses are weak.
For the full decisions, please see: