Rong Wei v. Chiu Sung Fai also known as Allan Chiu also known as Chiu Sung Fai Allan and Another

HCA 1509/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1509 OF 2019

______________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.On 28 August 2019 Wilson Chan J on an ex parte basis granted a Proprietary and Mareva Injunction against Ds (the “Injunction”). Today is the return date. P is seeking before me as the Summons Judge an Order that the Injunction be continued until further order.

2.I have read the Writ of Summons issued by P on 19 August 2019.  I have also read the affidavit of Dorothy Patricia Siron dated 23 August 2019 filed in support of the ex parte application.  In short, P has previously started an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada again Ds (the “BC Proceedings”).  On 18 August 2017, under HCMP 1785/2017, Deputy Judge William Wong SC, pursuant to s 21M of the High Court Ordinance and in aid of the BC Proceedings, granted a Proprietary and Mareva injunction against Ds.  That injunction has since been continued.  The BC Proceedings have now been concluded. Judgment was on 8 August 2019 made against Ds in the sum of CAD 2,548,335.20 with punitive damages in the amount of CAD 50,000 against each of Ds.  P has since started the present action to enforce that Judgment.

3.I have read the 2^nd affidavit of Dorothy Patricia Siron dated 12 September 2019 attaching a scanned copy of the affidavit of the process server Amerritpal Mander.  I am satisfied that, amongst other documents, a copy of the sealed Injunction and a copy of the sealed Concurrent Writ herein were served on 4 September 2019 upon Ds at their specified last known address as allowed by Wilson Chan J at §14 of the Injunction.

4.Ds are absent.

5.Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that serious issue to be tried has been demonstrated in respect of the Proprietary part of the Injunction.  In respect of the Mareva part of the Injunction, I am satisfied that a good arguable case has been demonstrated, and that there continues to be a risk of dissipation.  Now that judgment in the BC Proceedings has been obtained, the balance of convenience tilts overwhelmingly in favour of the continuation of the Injunction. 

6.I order that the Injunction be continued as per the Summons.

7.Costs reserved.

Mr Byron Chiu, instructed by Zhong Lun Law Firm, for the Plaintiff

The 1^st and 2^nd Defendants were not represented and did not appear