Read the full judgment text of HCA 2292/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 20 December 2018 before Deputy High Court Judge Keith Yeung SC.
Civil procedure – default judgment – declaratory relief – Mareva injunction – continuation post-judgment – email impersonation fraud – lease payment of AUD 2,003,332.84 diverted to defendant's bank account – plaintiff is Australian company with hotel leasehold interests in Sydney – defendant is recently incorporated Hong Kong company – fraudster impersonated plaintiff's representative to redirect payment – whether default judgment should be granted under O.19 r.7 – whether declaratory relief can be granted in default of defence where fraud is pleaded – whether Mareva injunction should be continued post-judgment – court holds default judgment should be granted – court holds declaratory relief may be granted in default where plaintiff has genuine need and court can properly grant it on merits – court holds Mareva injunction should be continued post-judgment due to fraudulent nature and clear risk of dissipation but with time limit – monetary judgment of AUD 2,003,332.84 – declarations granted – Mareva injunction continued until 30 June 2019 after which it will lapse – costs of HK$306,661.00 summarily assessed
Legal issues: Whether default judgment should be granted under O.19 r.7 · Whether declaratory relief should be granted in default of defence where fraud is pleaded · Whether the Mareva injunction should be continued post-judgment
Outcome: Default judgment granted in terms of the Summons; Mareva injunction continued post-judgment until 30 June 2019.
Cited by 18 cases · Cites 2 cases