Read the full judgment text of HCMP 938/2010 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 16 November 2010 before Mr Recorder Jat, SC.
Civil procedure – interim injunction in aid of foreign proceedings – section 21M of the High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) – Mareva injunction – worldwide freezing order – whether originating summons should be struck out under Order 18 r.19(1)(a) RHC – whether underlying English Action is in substance one to enforce foreign revenue law – whether judgment would be enforceable in Hong Kong under any Ordinance or at common law – conflict of laws – Dicey Rule 3 – court has no jurisdiction to entertain action for enforcement, directly or indirectly, of penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign State – MTIC fraud (carousel fraud) – missing trader intra-community fraud – fraudulent VAT refund claims – 'Third Party Recipient' arrangements – sham commission agreements – Bills of Rights 1689 Article 4 – Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Total Network SL [2008] 1 AC 1174 followed – claim for damages for tort of unlawful means conspiracy to defraud HMRC – distinction from tax evasion cases – Peter Buchanan Ltd v McVey [1955] AC 516 distinguished – QRS 1 Aps v Frandsen [1999] STC 616 distinguished – application to strike out dismissed with costs – leave to appeal to Court of Appeal refused
Legal issues: Whether the English Action is in substance an action to enforce UK revenue law so that any judgment would not be enforceable in Hong Kong for the purposes of section 21M
Outcome: Application by the 1st respondent to strike out the Concurrent Originating Summons dismissed with costs; leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.