Aim Global Holdings Ltd and Others v. Chien Kun Allen and Another

HCA 2217/2014 and
HCA 2495/2014
(Consolidated)

[2026] HKCFI 1847

HCA 2217/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2217 OF 2014

______________

______________

(By Original Action)

______________

(By Counterclaim)

ACTION NO 2495 OF 2014

______________

______________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of
Master Leong dated 3 February 2015)

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.For background, I refer to the Judgment of this Court handed down on 28 April 2023[1] (the “Judgment”) in favour of Mr Chien. The case is now at its quantum stage. I refer also to my Decisions dated 24 October 2025[2] and 22 January 2026[3] allowing Mr Chien’s 2 applications for interim payments (the “Interim Payments”). This Court also on 18 December 2025, upon Mr Chien’s application on an ex parte basis, granted a Mareva injunction restraining AIM and Liu from disposing of their assets up to US$6.5 million. The ex parte Mareva Injunction was continued on 2 January 2026 by Mimmie Chan J. Her Ladyship at that stage also imposed upon AIM and Liu ancillary disclosure obligations in aid (“Disclosure Obligations”).

2.By summons of 27 February 2026 (the “Unless Order Summons”), Mr Chien seeks an unless order, that unless AIM and Liu within 21 days pay the Interim Payments and the related assessed costs, and comply with their Disclosure Obligations, they be debarred from defending the present action and giving or adducing evidence at trial – effectively that they be debarred from defending the quantum stage.

3.Messrs. Ronald Tong & Co (“RT&Co”) have been solicitors on record for AIM and Liu. They have previously informed this Court that AIM and Liu had terminated its engagement as their solicitors. They repeated that in their recent letter of 13 March 2026 to this Court, and asked to be excused for this hearing. However, it turned out that they in fact had not served upon their clients the order of 9 January 2026 allowing them to cease to act (the “Ceasing to Act Order”). According to Order 67 rule 6(1), RT&Co remain solicitors on record for AIM and Liu. By directions given on 17 March 2026, I did not excuse RT&Co from attending this hearing. I also invited parties to assist this court on the question of service.

4.This morning, Ms Lee of RT&Co attended. Neither AIM nor Liu did. Ms Lee confirmed with this Court that service of the Ceasing to Act Order remains in progress, and the certificate required by Order 67 rule 6(1) had not yet been filed. She accepted that whilst RT&Co may be regarded as AIM & Liu’s former solicitors, RT&Co remain their solicitors on record.

5.I have read the affidavits of service of Cheung Ka Ho and Fung Yau Nim Francis. The Unless Order Summons and the related documents have been served (on 27 February and 18 March 2026) upon RT&Co as the solicitors on record for AIM and Liu. Whilst being former solicitors, but as RT&Co remain AIM and Liu’s solicitors on record, the service is valid – see Bank of China (Hong Kong) Ltd v Sze Wang (HCMP 2825/2001, 16 February 2005 at §17). The documents have further been served upon AIM and Liu outside jurisdiction pursuant to this Court’s order of 22 January 2026.

6.I have read the 2^nd affidavit of Hui Cheuk Kit Frederick. Neither the Interim Payments nor the related assessed costs have been paid. Nor have the Disclosure Obligations been complied with.

7.I have read the written submissions of Mr Arthur Poon, counsel for Mr Chien. I have considered the overall circumstances of the case. Given AIM and Liu’s repeated failure to comply with court orders, the absence of any explanations therefor, and their recent course of conduct suggesting attempts to avoid enforcement and execution to Mr Chien’s prejudice, I am satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to grant the Unless Order sought.

8.On costs, and on the facts of this case, I order that AIM and Liu should bear the costs of this application, to be assessed on an indemnity basis, which I assess at HK$140,000 (as per the Statement of Costs of 25 March 2026).

Mr Arthur Poon instructed by Zhong Lun Law Firm LLP, for the 1^st Defendant (by original action) and the 1^st Plaintiff (by counterclaim) in HCA 2217/2014 and the Plaintiff in HCA 2495/2014

Ms Iris Lee of Ronald Tong & Co (former Solicitors remaining on record) for the 1^st to 2^nd Plaintiffs (by original action) and the 1^st to 2^nd Defendants (by counterclaim) in HCA 2217/2014 and the Defendant in HCA 2495/2014

The 1^st to 2^nd Plaintiffs (by original action) and the 1^st to 2^nd Defendants (by counterclaim) in HCA 2217/2014 and the Defendant in HCA 2495/2014, absent