Read the full judgment text of HCCT 31/2012 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 6 September 2012 before Mr Recorder A Chan, SC in Chambers.
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings — Mareva injunction — Application by defendant to discharge worldwide Mareva injunction obtained ex parte by plaintiff. Parties in shipping and mineral resources business; dispute arose from repudiation of charterparty and losses claimed by plaintiff of approx. US$1 million. Legal issues included whether plaintiff satisfied criteria for worldwide Mareva injunction: good arguable case, insufficient local assets but assets abroad, real risk of asset dissipation; also duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications; admissibility of settlement negotiation statements. Court held that while plaintiff had good arguable case, substantial assets of defendant within jurisdiction exceeded claim value and no real risk of dissipation established. Plaintiff failed to make inquiries into defendant's financial position before ex parte application and failed to disclose material facts, including that key statements were made during without prejudice settlement negotiations and the defendant's dispute on claim quantum. Without prejudice rule applies to protect settlement communications absent clear impropriety, which was not demonstrated here. Injunction discharged on substantive and procedural grounds. Costs of discharge application ordered to defendant. No sentencing applicable.
Legal issues: Worldwide Mareva injunction criteria · Duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte Mareva applications · Admissibility and effect of settlement negotiation statements
Outcome: The Injunction is discharged.
Cites 2 cases