Read the full judgment text of FCMC 5240/2011 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 9 July 2019 before His Honour Judge G. Own.
Civil law – Matrimonial causes – Mareva injunction – Variation of order – Commercial advantage – Obligatory ground – Evidence credibility – Costs – District Court – Petitioner CK v Respondent TCH – Mareva injunction obtained 19 November 2012 against Respondent covering four landed properties in Shenzhen – Respondent issued Summons 20 August 2018 seeking variation to allow redevelopment of property 126 – Respondent argued commercial advantage ground claiming value increase and obligatory ground citing Mainland Authority Notice – Petitioner opposed arguing commercial advantage not good reason, evidence insufficient, and Notice forged – Court held Mareva injunction not intended to punish but must not operate oppressively – Halifax Plc v. Chandler distinguished as variation for legal expenses not commercial gain – Court found Respondent failed to prove value increase or obligatory nature of surrender – Notice dated 25 October 2017 found flawed with logical inconsistencies regarding dates – Court found Respondent dishonest or lacking fidelity regarding evidence – Past breaches of injunction by Respondent regarding properties 28G and 28H considered – Prejudice to Petitioner due to potential 5 year redevelopment delay noted – Court held variation based on value change unprecedented and would open floodgate – Summons dismissed – Mareva injunction continued until disposal of Petitioner’s ancillary reliefs – Respondent ordered to pay Petitioner’s costs including reserved costs – Certificate for Counsel granted.
Legal issues: Commercial Advantage Ground · Obligatory Ground
Outcome: Summons dismissed; Mareva Injunction continued
Cited by 3 cases