Read the full judgment text of HCCT 29/2019 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 1 June 2020 before Hon Mimmie Chan J.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Shareholders' Agreement dispute — Alleged forgery of signatures — Whether interlocutory Mareva injunction or Chabra jurisdiction order justified — Whether good arguable case established against defendant — Whether real risk of asset dissipation present — Costs orders in interlocutory applications. Skyhigh Investment Limited sought Mareva injunctions and disclosure orders against Yu Jun, Yu Mengying and Yujime Investment Management Limited for breach of obligations under a shareholders' agreement related to share repurchase triggered by IPO failure. Yu Mengying denied signing the relevant contracts, claiming forgery by Yu Jun. The Court held that at interlocutory stage it cannot decide signature forgery issues conclusively but found a good arguable case based on evidential circumstances including asset dealings in the defendant's name, her acceptance of her name and signature use, and father's admission of forgery. The Court accepted there was a real risk of asset dissipation given the father's control and previous transfers of assets in the defendant's name. Costs were awarded against the defendant for unnecessary continuation of summons after alternative Undertaking offer was refused. Orders were granted to continue injunctions including Mareva and Chabra orders, with cost consequences specified.
Legal issues: 是否須證明女方簽署的合約文件非偽造以支持申請禁制令 · 是否存在資產消耗的真實風險以支持凍結令或Chabra命令 · 關於訴訟費用承擔的裁定
Outcome: 申請人之禁制令申請成立，予以批出，女方須支付部分聽審後的訴訟費用。
Cites 6 cases