Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1408/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 3 August 2018 before Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung SC.
Civil procedure – Mareva injunction – interim relief in aid of Mainland proceedings – sections 21M and 21N of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) – registration of Mainland judgments under Cap 597 – whether nefarious intent is required to show risk of dissipation – whether special circumstances are required for post-judgment Mareva – whether ancillary disclosure information can prove risk of dissipation – whether real risk of dissipation established – whether material non-disclosure – whether delay – The plaintiff bank obtained default Mainland judgments against the defendants as guarantors of loans taken by Jiayi and Zhenxing, two Mainland companies that had ceased business in March 2016 – Within four months of the Mainland Judgments, the defendants sold all their three landed Hong Kong properties and D2's Tesla car, with parts of the Bel-Air Property deposit transferred to overseas accounts – The court held that the test for risk of dissipation is an objective one, requiring no showing of nefarious intent – The court rejected the defendants' contention that 'special circumstances' are required for a post-judgment Mareva injunction, holding that such injunctions are granted more readily than pre-judgment ones but should normally be of limited duration – The court declined to lay down a hard and fast rule on the use of ancillary disclosure information, following Bouvier v Accent Delight International – On the facts, a real risk of dissipation was inferred from the timing of the sales, the lack of credible explanations, the additional expense of leasing back the former family home, and the unexplained overseas transfers – No material non-disclosure was found as the plaintiff had no information regarding the 'all moneys' mortgages at the ex parte stage – A four-month delay between the Mainland Judgments and the Hong Kong application was not unreasonable given the cross-border nature of the proceedings – Continuation Summons allowed, Discharge Summons dismissed, costs to the plaintiff in the cause with certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Whether nefarious intent is required to show risk of dissipation for a Mareva injunction · Whether special circumstances are required for a post-judgment Mareva injunction · Whether asset disclosures under a Mareva ancillary disclosure order can be used to prove risk of dissipation · Whether a real risk of dissipation was established on the facts · Whether material non-disclosure justified discharge of the Mareva injunction
Outcome: Continuation Summons allowed; Discharge Summons dismissed
Cited by 27 cases · Cites 9 cases