The Jewish Federation of Greater Washington, Inc. v. Aiwo Trading Co., Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2110/2020 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 29 April 2021.
1. There is before me a summons taken out by the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington Inc (the “Plaintiff”) for leave to be granted to it so as to:
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
HCA 2110/2020 [2021] HKCFI 1381 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2110 OF 2020 ______________________ BETWEEN
______________________
_______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ 1.There is before me a summons taken out by the Jewish Federation of Greater Washington Inc (the “Plaintiff”) for leave to be granted to it so as to:
2.And paragraph 2:
3.Briefly stated, the Plaintiff is and was at all material times a charitable organisation based in the Washington District of Columbia area in the United States of America. The 1st defendant is a limited company incorporated in Hong Kong and at all material time maintained a bank account with the Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (the “BOC”). The 2nd defendant is also a limited company incorporated in Hong Kong and at all material times maintained and maintains a bank account with the BOC. 4.The Plaintiff is the victim of an email fraud and by reason of the same is claiming against the defendants for almost US$2 million, being the sum transferred from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the 1st defendant’s account on or around 19 June 2020 pursuant to the said fraud, which sum was subsequently transferred to the 2nd defendant’s account. Upon discovering the fraud, the Plaintiff attempted to stop the transfer of the misappropriated sums to the 1st defendant account but this was unsuccessful. Accordingly, the misappropriated sum was credited to the 1st defendant account. 5.On or around 8 August 2020, the Plaintiff reported the fraud to the Hong Kong Police by filing an online police report. On or around 11 December 2020, the police further indicated to the Plaintiff’s legal advisers that the sum had been transferred from the 1st defendant’s account to the 2nd defendant’s account. Prior to the transfer of the misappropriated sums, the Plaintiff did not know and did not have any dealings with any of the defendants, nor was there any proper nor legitimate reason for the plaintiff to pay and for the defendants to receive the misappropriated sums. 6.It is on that basis then the plaintiff applied pursuant to section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance for bankers’ records of the defendants. And it is for the reason that Madam Recorder Tam, SC, granted the bankers order on 19 January 2021. The defendants did not defend these proceedings and judgment was obtained in default against them on 16 February 2021. 7.As explained at the outset of these reasons, the Plaintiff now seeks a release from its undertakings. The applicable principles pertaining to an application such as the present have been dealt with in a number of judgments, including that of Chu J in Anite Telecoms Ltd v World Best Cargo-Link Co Ltd, Unicredit Bank Austria AG v Dragon Wise Trading Ltd [2013] 2 HKLRD 169 and Re NDT (BVI) Trading Ltd [2009] 5 HKLRD 615. The following principles can be extracted in summary from those authorities:
Conclusion 8.Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, I have no difficulty in making an order in term of the Plaintiff summons so as to release it from its implied undertaking.
Ms Ashima Sood, of Gall, for the plaintiff The 1st and 2nd defendants were not represented and did not appear |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case