Read the full judgment text of HCA 399/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 11 March 2020 before Harris J.
Civil procedure – freezing order (mareva injunction) – application by plaintiff for worldwide freezing order against 1st Defendant – whether plaintiff has good arguable case on quantum of claim – whether plaintiff should be permitted to apply in Hong Kong as court seised of substantive dispute after first seeking relief in BVI – whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets – Civil procedure – cross-border interim relief – five impugned transactions including wrongful acquisition of First Credit shares, failure to convert China Green convertible notes, acquisition of True Surplus, unsecured loan to Athena Power, and misappropriation of Checkmate – plaintiff an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of listed Convoy Global Holdings Limited, a money lender – defendant Roy Cho was central figure in Convoy group who disappeared from Hong Kong in November 2017 amid SFC and ICAC investigations following David Webb report – defendant subsequently charged by ICAC in connection with True Surplus transaction – whether plaintiff can claim loss where it retained three of the acquired assets – First Credit loss calculated as at date of trading suspension on 23 November 2017 – new board appointed December 2018 – China Green conversion claim – no evidence new board knew of impropriety at relevant time – True Surplus claim for rescission and recovery of purchase price $89,388,153.80 – court found good arguable case for $654 million – BVI freezing order against defendant personally set aside by Adderley J for lack of in personam jurisdiction and non-disclosure of Mercedes Benz AG and Siskina – freezing order against Broad Idea continued – plaintiff did not lose right to apply in Hong Kong by first attempting BVI route – plaintiff's choice explained by defendant's disappearance and the BVI incorporation of Broad Idea – application of principle that court seised of substantive dispute best placed to determine injunctive relief – but plaintiff not automatically barred by choosing foreign jurisdiction first – real risk of dissipation – freezing order not to provide security – concrete evidence required – mere possibility insufficient – no presumption defendant will make himself judgment proof – defendant a sophisticated businessman – specific transactions relied on (sale of Convoy shares, sale of Tsuen Wan shop, re-mortgaging of Providence Bay, properties held by offshore/listed companies, closure of margin account) were largely unremarkable – court declined to draw adverse inference from defendant's failure to file evidence on assets – no concrete risk of dissipation established – application dismissed – costs nisi to defendant with certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Whether CCL has good arguable case for full $654 million claim · Whether plaintiff should be permitted to apply for freezing order in Hong Kong after pursuing BVI application · Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets by 1st Defendant · Whether it is just and convenient to grant a freezing order
Outcome: Application for freezing order dismissed.
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 3 cases