Read the full judgment text of CAMP 224/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 24 February 2022 before Kwan VP, Cheung JA.
Civil procedure – Mareva injunction – leave to appeal – renewal of application – whether intended appeal has reasonable prospect of success – whether Judge plainly wrong in continuing worldwide Mareva injunction – good arguable case – 'no reflective loss' rule – reflective loss – Landune International Ltd v Cheung Chung Leung Richard – distinction between loss suffered by source of funds and conduit company – Agritrade India as conduit for misappropriated funds of US$5,060,000 – good arguable case on quantum – qualitative rather than quantitative assessment – Universal Entertainment Corporation v Kazuo Okada distinguished – material non-disclosure – duty of full and frank disclosure – spreadsheets – 400 pages of spreadsheets of which only seven produced – 'computer generated statement' wording – Rever (AMA) Salon v Kung – New Asia Energy Ltd v Concord Oil – objective test of materiality – risk of dissipation – transfer of property to wife – variation of injunction for living expenses – standing of 2nd plaintiff – whether Judge should have reduced quantum by US$9,575,000 – statement of claim – orders referring to '1st plaintiff' rather than 'plaintiffs' – Group Pacifica test for good arguable case – Pacific Rainbow International on good arguable defence – interlocutory injunction – exercise of discretion – appeal court review function – order nisi for costs – Order 59 rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court – Howse Williams – Mr Toby Brown – defendant unrepresented – application dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal issues: Application of 'no reflective loss' rule to the plaintiffs' claim · Whether the Judge misunderstood the fund flow table in the Annexed Table · Whether plaintiffs proved a good arguable case on quantum · Material non-disclosure regarding the spreadsheets · Whether the Judge wrongly considered the property transfer in assessing risk of dissipation · Whether the 2nd plaintiff should have been allowed to continue the injunction and obtain ancillary orders
Outcome: Defendant's renewed application for leave to appeal dismissed; the Court held the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
Cited by 20 cases · Cites 4 cases