Read the full judgment text of HCA 009151/1982 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 April 1983 before Liu J.
Civil procedure – Mareva injunction – application to restore discharged Mareva injunction against solicitor defendant sued in damages for negligence and breach of duty – claim unquantified – solicitor a former partner of substantial Hong Kong firm with insurance coverage well in excess of plaintiffs' suggested claim – material consideration whether real risk of stultification of judgment through removal of assets out of jurisdiction – balance of convenience – equitable jurisdiction – real risk that judgment against solicitor personally would be stultified by removal of assets is one of the material considerations – even if personal default were the crucial factor, little tangible benefit to plaintiffs as contrasted with disturbing consequences of Mareva injunction to defendant would not justify restoration in equity – overwhelming case on merits sufficient to dispose of application – ex parte application to discharge and alleged lack of notice to plaintiffs not necessary to decide – plaintiffs' ex parte application to restore discharged Mareva injunction refused – costs to follow the event.
Legal issues: Real risk of stultification as material consideration for Mareva injunction against solicitor · Balance of convenience where solicitor has partnership recourse and insurance · Restoration of discharged Mareva injunction on merits against solicitor
Outcome: Plaintiffs' ex parte application to restore the discharged Mareva injunction against the 10th defendant refused.