Read the full judgment text of HCCT 13/2016 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 1 June 2016 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction and Arbitration — Mareva injunction — Share purchase and put option dispute — Whether good arguable case to continue injunction — Whether material non-disclosure in ex parte application — Whether evidence of dissipation of assets — Whether injunction should be discharged and regranted — Variation of injunction to permit reasonable living and legal expenses — Court discharged original Mareva injunction due to non-disclosure by plaintiff concerning involvement of its COO in related transactions, but on balance regranted injunction with modifications — Key findings included rejection of defendant’s coercion claims regarding Supplemental Deed, objective assessment of asset disposition risk, and need for full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications — Revision of injunction scope to exclude shares held by third parties without control by defendant — Costs orders reflecting shared responsibility for procedure costs. The judgment emphasizes the court's careful balancing of the parties' rights, commercial realities and procedural fairness in grant of Mareva relief amid allegations of asset dissipation and non-disclosure.
Legal issues: 是否存在合理理由延期禁制令 · 是否存在重大未披露事实 · 是否有资产转移以规避执行的风险 · 是否应解除及重新授予禁制令 · 是否允许被告变更禁制令中支出限制
Outcome: 解除原有禁制令；重新授予修订后的禁制令继续生效
Cited by 13 cases