Read the full judgment text of HCCT 60/2023 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 4 March 2025 before Deputy High Court Judge Douglas Lam SC.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Mareva Injunction — Ex parte Application — Shareholders’ Agreement Breach — Interim Injunction — Costs. The Plaintiff, an investment vehicle managed by Oaktree Capital, sought an ex parte worldwide Mareva injunction and interim injunction against Defendants for an alleged unauthorized transfer of approximately RMB 190 million within the Group in breach of Clause 6.1 of a Shareholders’ Agreement requiring mutual consent for Reserved Matters. The Court found no real risk of dissipation justifying the Mareva injunction and held the ex parte nature of the interim injunction unjustified, given ongoing amicable discussions and lack of extreme urgency or secrecy. The Defendants were partially successful on costs, receiving 80% of costs on a party and party basis, reflecting the merits in the underlying issues but disapproval of the Plaintiff's failure to provide notice and material non-disclosure in the ex parte Application. The Originating Summons was dismissed and costs awarded accordingly.
Legal issues: Justification for Mareva injunction and ex parte application · Interpretation of Clause 6.1 of the Shareholders’ Agreement · Costs order following discontinuance and conduct of ex parte application
Outcome: The Originating Summons is dismissed; the 1st and 2nd Defendants awarded 80% of costs on a party and party basis.
Cites 7 cases