Read the full judgment text of HCCT 60/2024 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 5 December 2024 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) s.45; interim relief; Mareva injunction; asset preservation; arbitration facilitation; enforcement of arbitral interim orders. Plaintiffs commenced arbitration against Defendant for breach of settlement, claiming US$55 million damages. Defendant and its wholly owned subsidiary proposed asset transfers risking judgment-proof status. Plaintiffs sought emergency relief from the Tribunal, which issued procedural orders for escrow arrangements and undertakings to preserve Defendants’ assets before final award. Defendant delayed execution and compliance despite multiple Tribunal directions. Plaintiffs applied to the Hong Kong Court for interim injunctions under s.45 AO. Defendant argued that relief was unnecessary and inappropriate due to existing Tribunal orders. Court held that its power under s.45 AO is ancillary and intended to facilitate arbitral proceedings. Given Defendant’s procrastination and failure to comply with escrow arrangements, it was just and convenient for the Court to grant the injunctions and enforce Tribunal orders. Costs were awarded to Plaintiffs. The decision reinforces the Hong Kong Court’s supportive role in arbitration by safeguarding the integrity of interim relief when arbitral orders are frustrated or ignored.
Legal issues: Court's power to grant interim measures under s.45 AO
Outcome: Court granted the injunctions sought by the Plaintiffs and ordered costs to be paid by the Defendant.
Cited by 1 case