Chu v Je & Anor [2024] EWHC 90 (Ch) (23 January 2024)

Chu v Je & Anor [2024] EWHC 90 (Ch) (23 January 2024)

The Particulars of Claim against Kin Ming Je and Sin Ting Rong are not struck out as they disclose a proper cause of action and some generosity is warranted given the nature of the alleged fraud and lack of disclosure. A worldwide freezing and asset disclosure order is granted against Kin Ming Je, as Ms Chu has a good arguable case and there is a real risk of dissipation. No such order is granted against Sin Ting Rong, as only a modest proprietary claim is established and no real risk of dissipation is shown. The court has jurisdiction to hear the claims and no stay is granted. Amendments to the pleadings do not alter the outcome of the applications.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 90 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lee Chu; First Defendant: Kin Ming Je; Second Defendant: Sin Ting Rong
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Interim Applications in Civil Proceedings / Post Hearing Judgment on Strike Out, Freezing Order, Jurisdiction, and Amendment Applications
Outcome
Strike out applications dismissed; freezing and asset disclosure order granted against Kin Ming Je; freezing order against Sin Ting Rong refused; jurisdiction applications dismissed; no stay granted; permission to apply to increase freezing order sum; directions for hearing of amendment application.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Jurisdiction, Conspiracy, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Proprietary Claims, Chabra Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Fraud Equity Strike Out Applications Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Jurisdiction Conspiracy +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Chu

Claimant

Kin Ming Je

First Defendant

Sin Ting Rong

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interim Applications in Civil Proceedings / Post Hearing Judgment on Strike Out, Freezing Order, Jurisdiction, and Amendment Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Particulars of Claim should be struck out against Kin Ming Je and Sin Ting Rong
  2. 2 Whether a worldwide freezing and asset disclosure order should be granted against Kin Ming Je and Sin Ting Rong
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the claims

Ratio Decidendi

The Particulars of Claim against Kin Ming Je and Sin Ting Rong are not struck out as they disclose a proper cause of action and some generosity is warranted given the nature of the alleged fraud and lack of disclosure. A worldwide freezing and asset disclosure order is granted against Kin Ming Je, as Ms Chu has a good arguable case and there is a real risk of dissipation. No such order is granted against Sin Ting Rong, as only a modest proprietary claim is established and no real risk of dissipation is shown. The court has jurisdiction to hear the claims and no stay is granted. Amendments to the pleadings do not alter the outcome of the applications.

Court Disposition

Strike out applications dismissed; freezing and asset disclosure order granted against Kin Ming Je; freezing order against Sin Ting Rong refused; jurisdiction applications dismissed; no stay granted; permission to apply to increase freezing order sum; directions for hearing of amendment application.

Orders

  • Worldwide freezing and asset disclosure order against Kin Ming Je up to a sum reflecting recoveries (to be agreed by counsel)
  • Permission to apply to increase freezing order sum for interest and costs