Read the full judgment text of HCCT 1/2025 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 29 May 2025 before Deputy High Court Judge Andrew Li in Chambers.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings - Mareva injunction application - Worldwide freezing order - Risk of unjustified dissipation - Solid basis test - Delay in bringing application - Material non-disclosure on ex parte application - Transfer of shares to family as estate and succession planning - Sale of property for legitimate financial reasons - No finding of dishonesty - Enforcement action in Mainland China - Arbitration award and subsequent judicial decisions - Court declines to continue Mareva injunction for lack of solid evidence of dissipation risk and due to plaintiff's delay and material non-disclosure. Plaintiff sought to continue Mareva injunction granted ex parte on 2 January 2025 against defendant D who guaranteed obligations relating to share transfers under a 2012 agreement. Defendant transferred shares in a listed company to children and sold a flat amid enforcement proceeding and resigned from directorships, actions alleged by plaintiff as dissipation risk. Court applied Hong Kong authorities including Convoy Collateral and Lakatamia Shipping for principles governing risk of dissipation requiring solid evidential basis. Court found transfers transparent, at market value, for legitimate succession and retirement planning; sale of property done for Business financial reasons; defendant unaware of enforcement actions at time of transfers; no dishonesty established. Plaintiff’s serious delay in bringing injunction weakened trust in asserted dissipation risk. Material non-disclosure by plaintiff of share auction value and ongoing succession plan was also found. Application dismissed with costs to defendant.
Legal issues: Whether there is a real risk of unjustified dissipation of assets · Whether there was serious delay in the plaintiff’s application for the Mareva injunction · Whether there was material non-disclosure by the plaintiff in obtaining the ex parte order
Outcome: The summons for continuation of the Mareva injunction is dismissed; ancillary disclosure orders are also refused; costs awarded to Defendant.
Cites 6 cases