Brm Mobilier Sas (in Liquidation) v. Yee Kok Siong and Another

HCA 88/2019

[2019] HKCFI 1324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 88 OF 2019

__________

__________

________________

DECISION

________________

1.On 1 March 2019, A Chow J granted on an ex parte basis a proprietary / Mareva Injunction against the defendants (“Ds”). Today is the return date.

2.I have read the affirmation of Mr Jean Robert Brossier in support.  He is the former president of the plaintiff (“P”). P was a company incorporated in France.  In gist, P was the victim of an elaborate email fraud that took place in 2015.  P was deceived into remitting sums in total of €1,111,974.00 (the “Funds”) into a bank account held with the HSBC under the name of Gregory Investment Corp Limited (“Gregory Investment”).  A High Court Action was initiated against Gregory Investment, and a Garnishee Order obtained.  But by the time action was taken, the Funds had been transferred out of the account, and as a result, no part of them had been retrieved.

3.Towards the end of 2018, P was informed by the Hong Kong Police that part of the Funds had in fact been traced to an account held by D1.  D1 is the sole shareholder and director of Gregory Investment.  P has further been informed by the Hong Kong Police that further part of the Funds had been traced to another account held by D2.  P has in the circumstances been advised by the Police to commence civil proceedings against D1 and D2—hence this action.

4.I have read the affirmation of service of Tan Siew Bin Ronnie of 13 May 2019.  I am satisfied that the necessary papers have been served upon D1, who has indicated that he would co-operate in the return of the part of the Funds in his account.  In respect of D2, P has received an email from a Mr Pang (on whom the papers have been served as a director of D2) saying that he has since 25 June 2014 ceased to be a director of D2.  Neither D1 nor D2 appeared.

5.Having read the evidence, I am satisfied that serious issue to be tried (and in my view also good arguable case) has been established.  Risk of dissipation can clearly be inferred.  Balance of convenience is in favour of the continuation of the Injunction.  I order the Injunction to be continued until varied or discharged by a further Court Order in so far as D1 is concerned.  In so far as D2 is concerned, the Injunction is continued until 14 June 2019 and the Inter Partes Summons against D2 be adjourned to that date at 10:00 am before the Summons Judge so that the issue on service can be clarified. 

Mr Michael Ng, instructed by Robertsons, for the plaintiff

Both the 1^st and 2^nd defendants were not represented and did not appear