China Evergrande Group v Ding Yu Mei

China Evergrande Group v Ding Yu Mei

The defendant failed to provide evidence that she has no assets other than the proprietary funds, which is a threshold requirement for permitting expenditure from such funds. In the absence of such evidence, the application cannot proceed except to the extent consented to by the claimant. The court will only allow the variation to the extent agreed by the claimant and will adjourn the remainder of the application with liberty to restore.

Parties
Claimant: China Evergrande Group (In Liquidation); Respondent: Ding Yu Mei
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Proprietary Freezing Order Variation / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Proprietary Freezing Order
Outcome
Application for variation of proprietary freezing order granted only to the extent consented to by the claimant; otherwise adjourned with liberty to restore.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Freezing Orders, Variation of Orders, Disclosure of Assets, Legal Costs, Living Expenses
Civil Procedure Insolvency Equity Proprietary Freezing Orders Variation of Orders Disclosure of Assets Legal Costs Living Expenses

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Evergrande Group (In Liquidation)

Claimant

Ding Yu Mei

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Proprietary Freezing Order Variation / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Proprietary Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should be permitted to use funds subject to a proprietary freezing order for legal costs and living expenses
  2. 2 Whether sufficient evidence exists that the defendant has no other assets available for such expenditure
  3. 3 Whether the court should vary the proprietary freezing order as sought by the defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide evidence that she has no assets other than the proprietary funds, which is a threshold requirement for permitting expenditure from such funds. In the absence of such evidence, the application cannot proceed except to the extent consented to by the claimant. The court will only allow the variation to the extent agreed by the claimant and will adjourn the remainder of the application with liberty to restore.

Court Disposition

Application for variation of proprietary freezing order granted only to the extent consented to by the claimant; otherwise adjourned with liberty to restore.

Orders

  • Order amended to permit expenditure of a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation incurred through to and including 4 p.m. on 9 August 2024.
  • Order amended to permit expenditure of up to £350,000 on legal advice and representation for compliance with paras.12 and 13 of the 30 July 2024 order through to 4 p.m. on 27 August 2024.