CAI DENING AND ANOTHER v. CHIANG CHEW YUNG AND ANOTHER

CAI DENING AND ANOTHER v. CHIANG CHEW YUNG AND ANOTHER

Despite substantial delay by the plaintiffs, the Court refused to discharge the Mareva injunction because the plaintiffs would suffer serious prejudice (defendants not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, limited Hong Kong assets and prior conduct suggesting risk of asset removal) but varied the injunction to permit...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CAI DENING AND ANOTHER v. CHIANG CHEW YUNG AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Cai Dening; 2nd Plaintiff: Cai Qian; 1st Defendant: Chiang Chew Yung; 2nd Defendant: Lau Kam Fai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2000
Case Number
HCA416/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunctive Relief Mareva) / Application to Discharge/variate Mareva Injunction; Pre Trial (trial Fixed for May 2001)
Outcome
Mareva injunction varied but not discharged; defendants permitted limited withdrawals; stay granted for 7 days; no order as to costs except plaintiffs' costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Delay and Prejudice, Variation of Freezing Order, Security for Costs, Discovery and Disclosure
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Property Fraud Legal Aid Mareva Injunction Delay and Prejudice Variation of Freezing Order +2 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Cai Dening

1st Plaintiff

Cai Qian

2nd Plaintiff

Chiang Chew Yung

1st Defendant

Lau Kam Fai

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunctive Relief Mareva) / Application to Discharge/variate Mareva Injunction; Pre Trial (trial Fixed for May 2001)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mareva injunction should be discharged for plaintiff's delay
  2. 2 Whether injunction should be varied to permit withdrawals for legal fees and living expenses
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs would suffer prejudice if injunction lifted given defendants' lack of other Hong Kong assets and non-residence

Ratio Decidendi

Despite substantial delay by the plaintiffs, the Court refused to discharge the Mareva injunction because the plaintiffs would suffer serious prejudice (defendants not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, limited Hong Kong assets and prior conduct suggesting risk of asset removal) but varied the injunction to permit the defendants to withdraw up to HK$500,000 for legal fees and reasonable living expenses; the variation was stayed for seven days to allow an appeal application.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunction varied but not discharged; defendants permitted limited withdrawals; stay granted for 7 days; no order as to costs except plaintiffs' costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.

Orders

  • Mareva injunction (granted 13 January 1995 and varied subsequently) is varied to permit the defendants to withdraw up to a total of HK$500,000 for ordinary living expenses and to pay for legal advice and representation in this action.
  • Withdrawals to be made first out of HK$300,000 with accrued interest held by former solicitors Messrs L.H. Kwan & Co. as stakeholders and next out of time deposit no.0051 in the joint Hang Seng Bank account no.276109956888.