Read the full judgment text of HCCT000091/2002 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 6 November 2002 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction contract — Mareva injunction — domestic asset freezing order — plaintiff sought continuation and variation of injunction up to $47 million — defendant was subcontractor receiving payment from plaintiff — dispute whether payment was contractual or held on trust — plaintiff alleged constructive trust and fraud in use of funds — court requires plaintiff to show good arguable case, assets within jurisdiction, balance of convenience, real risk of dissipation and full frank disclosure — court found plaintiff's case novel and borderline but arguable, however failed to show real risk of dissipation — balance of convenience favoured injunction continuation but no evidence of further asset dissipation — injunction discharged with costs order nisi for defendant.
Legal issues: Existence of good arguable case for Mareva injunction · Real risk of dissipation of assets for continuation of injunction
Outcome: Mareva injunction discharged with costs order nisi in defendant's favour