Hmm (Hong Kong) Ltd (Formerly Known As Hyundai Merchant Marine (Hong Kong) Ltd) v. Ma Chun Kit

HCA 619/2016

[2025] HKCFI 5084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 619 OF 2016

____________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.This application was originally fixed to be heard last week on 10th October 2025. It transpired that the 1st Defendant, who is currently incarcerated, had not received a copy of the summons by the time of the hearing. The application was adjourned to today to enable the 1st Defendant to be given notice of the summons and of today’s hearing. Having read the 18th Affidavit of Desmond Liaw Tai Niap of 16th October 2025, I am satisfied that the 1st Defendant has been given such notice.

2.On 27th April 2022, DHCJ Winnie Tsui (as she then was) gave judgment for the Plaintiff against its former employee the 1st Defendant, who was found to have misappropriated over $387m from the Plaintiff (“the Judgment”).  The 1st Defendant was ordered to repay the misappropriated sum, together with compound interest, to the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff was separately convicted of four counts of theft in December 2020 in relation to essentially the same transactions.

3.In giving judgment, DHCJ Winnie Tsui also extended the Mareva injunction, originally granted by Anthony Chan J (as he then was) on 10th March 2016, for a period of twelve months post-judgment, to enable the Plaintiff to execute the Judgment.

4.The post-judgment Mareva has since been extended:

4.1for a period of twelve months, that is, until 26th April 2024, by order of DHCJ Jenkin Suen SC on 14th April 2023; and

4.2for a further period of eighteen months, that is until 26th October 2025, by order of DHCJ KC Chan on 22nd March 2024.

5.By summons of 29th September 2025, the Plaintiff now seeks to further extend the post-judgment Mareva for twenty-four months.

6.The court has the power to extend the duration of a post‑judgment Mareva injunction.  However, the power should not be lightly exercised.  Absent any material change in circumstances, the court’s primary concern is whether the judgment creditor has been diligent in execution, and whether it is in the interests of justice to extend the injunction: Leader Screws Manufacturing Co Ltd v Huang Shun Kui [2021] HKCFI 2041 at [5] (Au-Yeung J).

7.The Plaintiff’s evidence is that so far, only $24m-odd has been recovered, for example through garnishing bank accounts and selling properties; over $727m (comprising the Judgment sum and interest) remains outstanding.  However, the 1st Defendant has been obstructive and uncooperative (as demonstrated, for example, in his answers in an oral examination on 24th August 2023), making it more difficult for the Plaintiff to locate the 1st Defendant’s assets for the purpose of execution.

8.The 17th Affidavit of Desmond Liaw Tai Niap (“Liaw 17th”) further sets out evidence suggesting that the 1st Defendant has been using his family members, girlfriend, and other associates to hold his assets out of reach of the Plaintiff.  Liaw 17th also refers to findings made in various judgments regarding the 1st Defendant’s dishonest and unscrupulous behaviour.

9.Nevertheless, Liaw 17th has not provided much information as to what enforcement actions have been taken during the period of the previous extension of the post-judgment Mareva (27th April 2024 to 26th October 2025).  Four matters were referred to.

9.1The 1st Defendant was orally examined on 24th August 2023.  He was uncooperative.  What follow-up actions have been taken or remain to be taken is unclear; Liaw 17th paragraph 39 simply says that further time is required to investigate.

9.2Reference was made to “continuous efforts” to sell certain properties registered in the name of the 1st Defendant, and it was said that this has taken time due to various factors such as the state of the property market, and that the Plaintiff would need at least a year to sell the properties (Liaw 17th paragraph 40).  I note that there were seven such properties, identified by June 2022, and that two of the properties have been sold.  No details have been given as to what efforts have been made to sell the rest.  In any event, the Plaintiff has already obtained a charging order absolute against the property, and an order for possession and sale of the properties.  The continuation of the post-judgment Mareva is not needed to assist with the sale.

9.3A garnishee order was obtained against the 1st Defendant’s sister Ma Fei Fei on 13th December 2024, pursuant to which Ma Fei Fei was to pay to the Plaintiff the debt of $648,800 and other debts owed by her to the 1st Defendant (Liaw 17th paragraph 41).  No payment has yet been forthcoming from Ma Fei Fei.  The Plaintiff then obtained a garnishee order to show cause against two banks at which it was believed that Ma Fei Fei had accounts (Liaw 17th paragraph 44), but the application to make the order absolute has been withdrawn as Ma Fei Fei does not have accounts with those banks.  The Plaintiff has not explained how a continuation of the post‑judgment Mareva would assist with recovery against Ma Fei Fei.

9.4A judgment was obtained against the 1st Defendant’s girlfriend in the Intermediate Court of Macau in July 2025 for sums transferred from the 1st Defendant’s account to his girlfriend’s bank accounts; it is said that the sums were used to buy properties in Macau and Australia (Liaw 17th paragraphs 47 and 48).  The Plaintiff has not explained in the affidavit evidence how a continuation of the post-judgment Mareva against the 1st Defendant would assist with recovery against the 1st Defendant’s girlfriend out of the jurisdiction, particularly when the Plaintiff has already obtained an injunction against the 1st Defendant’s girlfriend in Macau.

10.In other words, the evidence as to steps taken in executing the Judgment during the previous eighteen-month extension of the post‑judgment Mareva consists of no more than the evidence regarding the efforts to garnish debts owing from Ma Fei Fei and her bank accounts, the fact that judgment was given in Macau against the 1st Defendant’s girlfriend, and unparticularised statements that efforts to enforce the Judgment are continuing.

11.Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not in the affidavit evidence given concrete details as to how the extension of the post-judgment Mareva would assist with following up any of the steps already taken, or steps planned to be taken, or otherwise to assist in locating the assets of the 1st Defendant.

12.I accept that the 1st Defendant should still have substantial assets, given the amount stolen from the Plaintiff.  I also accept that the 1st Defendant’s obstructive stance means that it has been difficult for the Plaintiff to locate such assets so as to execute the Judgment against them, so that the Plaintiff should be given every opportunity to pursue the location and recovery exercise.  Nevertheless, the Plaintiff does need to demonstrate that it has been pursuing execution diligently, and that it would be in the interests of justice to continue the injunction.

13.At the hearing today, Mr Liaw explained that the 1st Defendant’s girlfriend has a bank account in Hong Kong, so that the post‑judgment Mareva would operate in respect of this account pending the appeal in Macau; the Plaintiff would seek to enforce against this account after the conclusion of the appellate proceedings in Macau, which will take about a year.  Mr Liaw explained that some further steps will be taken to locate the 1st Defendant’s assets.  There is therefore some utility in continuing the injunction.

14.In the circumstances, I am not prepared to give the twenty-four month extension sought.  I will extend the injunction for fifteen months.  The Plaintiff should proceed diligently with pursuing enforcement of the Judgment.  Should the Plaintiff require a further extension thereafter, it will need to produce evidence that it has been using these fifteen months to diligently pursue execution, and/or to show how any further extension would assist in such execution or would otherwise be in the interests of justice.

Mr Desmond Liaw, instructed by Minterellison LLP, for the Plaintiff

The 1^st Defendant was not represented and did not appear