Last Brand, Inc. v. Fan Suk Han Trading As Estar and Another

HCA 1565/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1565 OF 2025

_______________________

_______________________

_______________________

DECISION

_______________________

Introduction and Background

1.The background of this case has been set out in my Decision dated 10 October 2025 (“the Decision”): see [2025] HKCFI 5965.  For consistency and ease of reference, I shall continue to adopt the definitions and abbreviations in the Decision herein.

2.Since the grant of a Mareva injunction against D1 (“Injunction against D1”), P obtained a Mareva injunction against D2 by order of DHCJ Gary C.C. Lam on 7 November 2025 (“Injunction against D2”).  Both injunctions were granted “pending the determination of the trial of this action or further order of the Court”.

3.On 17 December 2025 and 21 January 2026, final judgment was obtained by P against D2 for the sum of HK$5M together with interest and fixed costs and D1 for the sum of US$5,012,435.51 together with interest and fixed costs (“Final Judgment against D1”), respectively. 

4.On 3 February 2026, P was granted a garnishee order to show cause by Master Elaine Liu (“Garnishee OrderNisi”) in respect of P’s application against HSBC (“the Garnishee”) for the Garnishee to pay to P the debt due from the Garnishee to D2 sufficient to satisfy D2’s judgment debt and costs of the garnishee proceedings.

5.By Summons dated 4 February 2026, D1 had applied to set aside the Final Judgment against D1 but this was dismissed on 17 April 2026.  Whilst on 24 April 2026, P was granted a garnishee order to show cause by Master J Wong (“the 2^nd Garnishee Order Nisi”) in respect of P’s application against the Garnishee for it to pay P the debt due from the Garnishee to D1, that order has not been sealed nor served on the parties.

6.Today, I have before me three applications by P:

(1)     For the Garnishee Order Nisibe made absolute;

(2)     For variation of the Injunction against D1; and

(3)     For variation of the Injunction against D2.

7.I am satisfied from the affirmation of service filed on behalf of P that D2 and the Garnishee have been properly served with the documents in relation to P’s garnishee and variation applications and sufficient notice of today’s hearing given to them as required by the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A (“RHC”)[1].

8.By letter dated 20 April 2026 to P’s solicitors, the Garnishee stated that it does not intend to contest P’s garnishee application nor to attend today’s hearing.  The Garnishee has not appeared today.

9.D2 does not appear today.  Given I was satisfied that he has been properly served and has notice of today’s hearing, and no acknowledgement of service has ever been filed nor has D2 participated in this action to date, it is expedient to proceed with today’s hearing in her absence.

10.Mr Kwok, counsel, appears for P.  D1 appeared in person.

Discussion and Disposition

11.O.49, r.1(1) of RHC provides:

“Where a person (in this Order referred to as ‘the judgment creditor’) has obtained a judgment or order for the payment by some other person (in this Order referred to as ‘the judgment debtor’) of a sum of money amounting in value to at least $1,000, not being a judgment or order for the payment of money into court, and any other person within the jurisdiction (in this Order referred to as ‘the garnishee’) is indebted to the judgment debtor, the Court may, subject to the provisions of this Order and of any written law, order the garnishee to pay the judgment creditor the amount of any debt due or accruing due to the judgment debtor from the garnishee, or so much thereof as is sufficient to satisfy that judgment or order and the costs of the garnishee proceedings.”

12.I am satisfied that:

(1)     P, as judgment creditor, has obtained judgment for payment of a sum of money of over HK$1,000;

(2)     The Garnishee is within the jurisdiction; and

(3)     As D2 has maintained an account with the Garnishee to which P had transferred HK$5M into and the Injunction against D2 was granted in respect of that account, there is a credit balance in that account such that the Garnishee is indebted to D2.

13.Given the lack of opposition, and I can think of no reasonable ground why the Garnishee Order Nisi should not be made absolute, I therefore will make the Garnishee Order Nisi absolute.

14.I would also order the Injunction against D2 be continued for a period of 6 months save that the injunction as continued does not prohibit the Garnishee from paying any funds to P’s solicitors pursuant to the garnishee order absolute granted by me in favour of P.  Accordingly, I will make an order in terms of the draft order submitted to me (as amended by me).

15.As for the application for variation of the Injunction against D1, given service of the Summons in respect of that application was not properly effected and the 2^nd Garnishee Order Nisi has not been served on the Garnishee, I will adjourn the variation application sine die with liberty to restore when the court considers P’s application to make absolute the 2^nd Garnishee Order Nisi.

Mr Jonathan Kwok, instructed by Messrs S.T. Cheng & Co., for the Plaintiff

The 1^st Defendant appeared in person

The 2^nd Defendant and the Garnishee were not represented and did not appear