FONG MING v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

FONG MING v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case, on the whole of the evidence there was insufficient real risk of removal or dissipation of assets (and the trust/proprietary claims were weak and delayed) to justify continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions; the facts did not warrant interlocutory proprietary injunctions or exceptional pre-pleading discovery; Order 44A relief did not apply.

Citation
FONG MING v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (h.c.a.10014/1983): Fong Ming; Plaintiff (h.c.a.10514/1983): Langcork Limited; 1st Defendant: Yat Ming Investment Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Michaela Ma
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 September 1983
Case Number
HCA10014/1983
Procedural Posture
Civil Mareva Injunctions, Proprietary/trust Claims and Discovery Applications / Interlocutory Hearing on Applications to Continue/discharge Ex Parte Injunctions, for Discovery and for Order 44 a Relief
Outcome
Applications by plaintiffs to continue ex parte injunctions dismissed; ex parte Mareva injunctions discharged; applications for discovery refused; defendants' summons to discharge injunctions allowed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Proprietary (trust) Injunction, Tracing and Interlocutory Discovery, Ex Parte Non Disclosure, Order 44 a (absconding Debtor)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts Injunctions Discovery Mareva Injunction Proprietary (trust) Injunction Tracing and Interlocutory Discovery +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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fong Ming

Plaintiff (h.c.a.10014/1983)

Langcork Limited

Plaintiff (h.c.a.10514/1983)

Yat Ming Investment Company Limited

1st Defendant

Michaela Ma

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Mareva Injunctions, Proprietary/trust Claims and Discovery Applications / Interlocutory Hearing on Applications to Continue/discharge Ex Parte Injunctions, for Discovery and for Order 44 a Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ex parte Mareva injunctions should be continued
  2. 2 Whether defendant holds trust property warranting a proprietary injunction
  3. 3 Whether discovery can be ordered prior to close of pleadings to trace intermingled trust assets

Ratio Decidendi

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case, on the whole of the evidence there was insufficient real risk of removal or dissipation of assets (and the trust/proprietary claims were weak and delayed) to justify continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions; the facts did not warrant interlocutory proprietary injunctions or exceptional pre-pleading discovery; Order 44A relief did not apply.

Court Disposition

Applications by plaintiffs to continue ex parte injunctions dismissed; ex parte Mareva injunctions discharged; applications for discovery refused; defendants' summons to discharge injunctions allowed; costs reserved

Orders

  • Dismiss plaintiffs' summonses to continue the ex parte injunctions in H.C.A.10014/1983 and H.C.A.10514/1983
  • Discharge the ex parte Mareva injunctions previously granted