Read the full judgment text of HCCT 6/2007 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 26 April 2007 before Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie in Chambers.
Construction law — Mareva injunction — Asset dissipation — Arbitration — Property transfer to related companies — Complex loan arrangements — Full and frank disclosure in ex parte application — Adequacy of undertakings — Balance of convenience. The plaintiff, as main contractor, sought a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendant from dissipating assets in relation to arbitration on construction contracts for 8-12 Peak Road. The defendant transferred property units to related companies as part of loan arrangements, raising risk of asset dissipation. The court found the defendants’ intention irrelevant and upheld the injunction, holding that transfer to related companies removed assets from enforcement control. The plaintiff made sufficient disclosure at the ex parte hearing; criticisms of non-disclosure of property value and financial knowledge were not material. The defendant’s undertaking without registered security was inadequate protection compared to an injunction. The balance of convenience favored continuing the Mareva injunction pending arbitration. The injunction was accordingly continued until final arbitral award with conditions on payment and discharge if no award in favor.
Legal issues: Risk of Dissipation of Assets · Full and Frank Disclosure at Ex-Parte Hearing · Adequacy of Defendant's Undertaking · Balance of Convenience for Continuing Injunction
Outcome: The Mareva injunction was continued until the Arbitrator’s final award, subject to the defendant paying any sums awarded; if no award in favor of the plaintiff, the injunction to be discharged forthwith.