Chen & Ors v Chui & Ors (Rev 1)

Chen & Ors v Chui & Ors (Rev 1)

The court held that the freezing injunction and order for provision of information should continue as there was sufficient evidence of asset dissipation to frustrate enforcement of a costs order, the application was not an abuse of process, the respondents were aware of the case against them, and the procedural requirements of CPR 19.4 and ECHR rights were satisfied at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: C. Chen & Others; Defendant: G. Chui & Others; Defendant: Mr. Thomas
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Injunction and Provision of Information
Outcome
Application to discharge or vary freezing injunction refused
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Third Party Debt Orders, Enforcement of Judgments, Abuse of Process, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Freezing Injunctions Third Party Debt Orders Enforcement of Judgments Abuse of Process Joinder of Parties

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. Chen & Others

Claimant

G. Chui & Others

Defendant

Mr. Thomas

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Freezing Injunction and Provision of Information

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a freezing injunction should be continued against the Claimant and fifth Defendant in aid of enforcement of a costs order
  2. 2 Whether the application for injunction is an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 and Article 8 ECHR rights are engaged or violated by the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the freezing injunction and order for provision of information should continue as there was sufficient evidence of asset dissipation to frustrate enforcement of a costs order, the application was not an abuse of process, the respondents were aware of the case against them, and the procedural requirements of CPR 19.4 and ECHR rights were satisfied at this stage.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge or vary freezing injunction refused

Orders

  • Freezing injunction against Mrs. Chen and Mr. Boqian Du continued, limited to £80,000
  • Order for provision of information by Mrs. Chen and Mr. Boqian Du regarding dealings with 37 Witnell Road and Fu Kang shares and proceeds, by 25 May