Read the full judgment text of HCCT 31/2018 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 3 October 2018 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Arbitration — Interim measures — Receivership — Jurisdiction under section 45 Arbitration Ordinance — Whether court may grant interim measures against non-party to arbitration — Whether receivership justified against third party holding shares in dispute — Plaintiffs sought receivership of Thai Co shares held in name of 3rd Defendant, not party to arbitration, to preserve assets pending enforcement of arbitration award — Plaintiffs alleged breaches of injunction orders and suspicious transfers designed to evade enforcement — Court declined ex parte application, heard inter partes — Held that under s 45 court has jurisdiction to grant interim measures ancillary to arbitration including against non-parties where justified — However, receivership is intrusive and requires clear evidence of risk of dissipation not met on facts — Existing injunctions and ongoing litigation provided less intrusive protection — Distinct corporate entities involved and lack of proprietary claim limited court’s ability to order receivership — Application refused with costs to Defendants.
Legal issues: Jurisdiction of the court under s 45 Arbitration Ordinance to grant interim measures against non-party · Whether receivership order should be granted as an interim measure against a third party
Outcome: Application for appointment of receivers refused; costs awarded to Defendants and 3rd Defendant with certificate for two counsel.
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 4 cases