Read the full judgment text of HCCT 33/2006 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 June 2006 before Hon Reyes J.
Enforcement of foreign arbitral award — Mareva injunction — Prohibition order — Examination of defendants as debtors — Abuse of process — Asset dissipation risk — Medical urgency — The plaintiffs sought enforcement of a Singapore arbitral award rendered enforceable as a Hong Kong Judgment under section 2GG of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341). The defendants challenged the Mareva and prohibition orders obtained ex parte on grounds of material non-disclosure and abuse of process, relying also on claims of urgent medical needs of the 2nd Defendant. The court ruled no material non-disclosure or subterfuge occurred, and that the enforcement relief did not constitute abuse of process despite the foreign nature of parties and assets, given the award’s enforcement as Hong Kong Judgment and principles of international comity. There was credible evidence of a real risk of dissipation of assets, justifying continuation of the Mareva injunction. The medical evidence was insufficient to show urgent need beyond Hong Kong. The court also granted an order for examination of defendants as debtors and ancillary prohibition to prevent the 2nd Defendant leaving jurisdiction, to ensure effective enforcement of the award. All orders were made with liberty to apply. Costs and further matters were to be addressed subsequently.
Legal issues: Validity of Mareva injunction and prohibition order · Abuse of process in seeking enforcement relief in Hong Kong · Risk of dissipation of assets · Urgency and adequacy of medical attention for 2nd Defendant · Appropriateness of order for defendants' examination as debtors and ancillary prohibition
Outcome: Mareva injunction continued; prohibition order granted against 2nd Defendant; order for examination of defendants as debtors made
Cites 1 case