Leung Sze Chun v. Company Registration Number 206006 Ltd (Formerly Known As Noble Holdings Group (Hong Kong) Ltd and C&L International Holdings Group (Hong Kong) Ltd)

DCCJ 6510/2019

[2024] HKDC 1872

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 6510 OF 2019

------------------------------

------------------------------

------------------------------

DECISION

------------------------------

Introduction and procedural background

1.The Plaintiff (“P”) claims to be a victim of a fraudulent investment scheme whereby she was deceived into transferring a total of HK$1,500,000 to the bank account of the Defendant (“D”). On 2 December 2019, P commenced this action by Writ of Summons endorsed with a Statement of Claim.

2.On 7 August 2020, His Honour Judge Kent Yee (“the Judge”) granted an injunction order against D whereby D was prohibited from removing any of its assets within Hong Kong up to the value of HK$1,500,000 (“the Injunction Order”). The duration of the Injunction Order was until the determination of the trial of this action or further order of the court.

3.By an Order dated 3 March 2021, the Judge varied the Injunction Order to cover D’s bank accounts maintained with Bank of Communications Co Ltd (“the Bank”).

4.On 1 February 2023, final judgment was entered against D for the sum of HK$1,500,000 with interest by consent.

5.By Order of Master Vienne Luk, a garnishee order to show cause was made against the Bank as garnishee.

6.I have before me two applications by P:

(1)  For the garnishee order to show cause against the Bank be made absolute; and

(2)  For variation of the Injunction Order to permit the Bank to release to P’s solicitors any amounts the Bank is holding on credit for D pursuant to any garnishee order made absolute by the court.

Discussion

Service

7.I am satisfied from the various affirmations of service filed on behalf of P that both D and the Bank have been properly served with the documents in relation to the applications made against them and sufficient notice of today’s hearing given to them as required by the rules of court[1].

8.By letter dated 24 October 2024, the Bank has indicated its neutral position to the garnishee proceedings and that it does not intend to attend today’s hearing (“the Bank’s Letter”). The Bank does not appear today.

9.As D has been properly served, I am of the view that it is expedient to proceed with today’s hearing notwithstanding D’s absence today.

10.Ms Mok, counsel, appears on behalf of P.

Garnishee proceedings

11.O 49, r 1(1) of RDC provides:

“Where a person (in this Order referred to as ‘the judgment creditor’) has obtained a judgment or order for the payment by some other person (in this Order referred to as ‘the judgment debtor’) of a sum of money amounting in value to at least $1,000, not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into court, and any other person within the jurisdiction (in this Order referred to as ‘the garnishee’) is indebted to the judgment debtor, the Court may, subject to the provisions of this Order and of any written law, order the garnishee to pay the judgment creditor the amount of any debt due or accruing due to the judgment debtor from the garnishee, or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy that judgment or order and the costs of the garnishee proceedings.”

12.I am satisfied that:

(1)  P, as judgment creditor, has obtained judgment for payment of a sum of money of over $1,000;

(2)  The Bank is within the jurisdiction; and

(3)  As D has maintained accounts with the Bank and it has not been suggested no balance remain in those accounts, the Bank is indebted to D.

13.Given the neutral position of the Bank, and I can think of no reasonable ground why the garnishee order nisi should not be made absolute, I do make the garnishee order absolute against the Bank.

Variation of the Injunction

14.According to P’s solicitors, D’s assets are subject to the Injunction Order as varied by the Judge that survives the final judgment. Similarly, in the Bank’s Letter, it was also stated that the restraint and injunctions order made against D still remain in force.

15.Whilst it is not apparent to me that is the case on my reading of the Injunction Order, however for the avoidance of any doubt, I would allow the variation sought by P.

Disposition

16.I would therefore make an order in terms of the draft orders submitted to me.

Costs

17.I order that the costs of these applications be to P. Adopting a broad-brush approach, the costs of the application for garnishee order and the application to vary are summarily assessed at HK$16,000 and HK$9,000 respectively.

Ms Tina Mok, instructed by Yip, Tse & Tang, for the Plaintiff

The Defendant, represented by Ivan Tang & Co, absent

The Garnishee was not represented and did not appear