Ltc (Bvi) Ltd (A Limited Company Registered in the Bvi) v. Tempest Storm Co Ltd and Others

HCA 535/2022

[2025] HKCFI 2104

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 535 OF 2022

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Introduction and procedural background

1.The Plaintiff (“P”) is a victim of a fraud and was deceived by unknown persons into making payments totalling approximately USD2.8M to the bank account of the 1^st Defendant (“D1’s Account”) on 17 May 2021.  P’s monies have been traced from D1’s Account to a bank account in the name of the 7^th Defendant (“D7”) maintained with the Garnishee Bank (“D7’s Account”).

2.By writ issued on 11 May 2022, P commenced the present action against the Defendants including D7. 

3.By an order of Anthony Chan J dated 20 May 2022, an injunction was granted inter alia against D7 restraining the disposal of the funds in D7’s Account (“the Injunction Order”).  The Injunction Order was subsequently further continued by various orders of the court.  It was last continued by Order of Recorder Maurellet SC dated 28 March 2025 until further order of the court.

4.On 10 February 2025, final judgment in the sum of USD100,000, together with interest and fixed costs was obtained by P against D7.

5.On 16 April 2025, a garnishee order to show cause was made by Master Maurice Lam against the Garnishee Bank (“garnishee order nisi”).

6.Originally, I had before me two applications by P:

(1)  For the garnishee order nisi be made absolute; and

(2)  For discontinuation of the Injunction Order as against D7 to permit the Garnishee Bank to release to P any amounts it is holding on credit for D7 pursuant to any garnishee order made absolute by the court.

Mr Diebschlag, solicitors appearing for P, confirmed that he would only pursue (1).

7.I am satisfied from the various affirmations of service filed on behalf of P that both D7 and the Garnishee Bank have been properly served with the documents in relation to P’s application 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 16 April 2025 to P’s solicitors, the Garnishee Bank has indicated its neutral position to the garnishee proceedings and has asked to be excused from attending today’s hearing.  The Bank does not appear today.

9.By letter dated 8 May 2025 to this Court, the solicitors for D7 sought to be excused from attending today’s hearing on the ground that they are in the course of applying to cease to act for D7.  However, as they still remain on the record, I did not excuse D7’s solicitors from attending today’s hearing. Mr Tsang, solicitors, appeared on behalf of D7 and confirmed that he had no instructions to act and make any submissions in relation to P’s application on behalf of D7.

Discussion

10.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.”

11.I am satisfied that:

(1)  P, as judgment creditor, has obtained judgment for payment of a sum of money of over $1,000.00;

(2)  The Garnishee Bank is within the jurisdiction; and

(3)  As D7 has maintained accounts with the Garnishee Bank and it has not been suggested no balance remain in those accounts, the Garnishee Bank is indebted to D7.

12.Given the neutral position of the Garnishee Bank, and I can think of no reasonable ground why the garnishee order nisi should not be made absolute, I do make the garnishee order absolute against the Garnishee Bank.

Disposition

13.I would therefore make an order in terms of the draft order submitted to me (as amended).

Mr Pryderi Diebschlag, of Clyde & Co, for the Plaintiff

Mr Walter Tsang, of CFN Lawyers, for the 7^th Defendant

The Garnishee, not represented and being absent