CHOW FU HSIEN v. K VISION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (HK) LTD

CHOW FU HSIEN v. K VISION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (HK) LTD

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant had persistently refused to account, the conduct demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets, and on that factual basis it was just and convenient to appoint receivers to protect the plaintiff's beneficial interest; Master Lai's order appointing Deloitte accountants as receivers was therefore correct and stands.

Citation
CHOW FU HSIEN v. K VISION INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT (HK) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Madam Chow; Defendant/appellant: HK K Vision (defendant)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 2011
Case Number
HCA2884/2004
Procedural Posture
Trusts and Equitable Remedies; Receivership; Account / Interlocutory Appeal (decision on Appointment of Receivers)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment of Receiver After Judgment, Account of Trust, Asset Preservation and Dissipation Risk, Delay and Laches, Costs Allocation of Receiver
Source Language
EN
Trust Law Equity Civil Procedure Receivership Enforcement of Judgment Appointment of Receiver After Judgment Account of Trust Asset Preservation and Dissipation Risk +2 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madam Chow

Plaintiff/respondent

HK K Vision (defendant)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Trusts and Equitable Remedies; Receivership; Account / Interlocutory Appeal (decision on Appointment of Receivers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a receiver may be appointed after judgment to preserve trust assets and enforce an account
  2. 2 Whether alleged delay by the plaintiff bars appointment of a receiver
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets warranting appointment of a receiver

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant had persistently refused to account, the conduct demonstrated a real risk of dissipation of assets, and on that factual basis it was just and convenient to appoint receivers to protect the plaintiff's beneficial interest; Master Lai's order appointing Deloitte accountants as receivers was therefore correct and stands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
  • Order of Master Lai appointing two accountants at Deloitte as receivers of the defendant's assets upheld