CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER

The application was partially allowed: the court held that permitting Mr Lau to withdraw HK$15,000 per week for living expenses did not defeat the purpose of the Mareva injunction because he had disclosed his assets and had no other source of funds; however payment out for legal costs was refused at this stage because there was insufficient evidence of actual costs incurred (only statements on account) and uncertainty about the proposed appeal, so authorisation to pay those legal costs was inappropriate for now.

Citation
CHEUNG SAI LUN v. LAU TAI CHIN FRANCIS AND ANOTHER
Parties
Petitioner: Cheung Sai Lun; 1st Respondent: Lau Tai Chin Francis; 2nd Respondent: UPI Technology Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2007
Case Number
HCCW677/2004
Procedural Posture
Companies (winding Up) / Chambers Application to Vary Mareva Injunction; Reasons for Decision on Payment Out
Outcome
Application partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Variation of Injunction, Payment Out of Court, Legal Costs, Living Expenses, Disclosure of Assets
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Company Law Civil Litigation Costs Mareva Injunction Variation of Injunction Payment Out of Court +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Sai Lun

Petitioner

Lau Tai Chin Francis

1st Respondent

UPI Technology Limited

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies (winding Up) / Chambers Application to Vary Mareva Injunction; Reasons for Decision on Payment Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether funds held under a Mareva injunction may be paid out to the restrained defendant for living expenses
  2. 2 Whether funds may be paid out for legal costs, including anticipated costs and costs of potential appeals
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has undisclosed assets or alternative sources of funds that would defeat payment out

Ratio Decidendi

The application was partially allowed: the court held that permitting Mr Lau to withdraw HK$15,000 per week for living expenses did not defeat the purpose of the Mareva injunction because he had disclosed his assets and had no other source of funds; however payment out for legal costs was refused at this stage because there was insufficient evidence of actual costs incurred (only statements on account) and uncertainty about the proposed appeal, so authorisation to pay those legal costs was inappropriate for now.

Court Disposition

Application partly allowed.

Orders

  • Respondent Mr Lau permitted to withdraw HK$15,000 per week from the funds held in court for his living expenses.
  • Application for payment out of court for legal costs refused at this stage for lack of evidence of costs actually incurred and because parts of the claimed costs relate to an appeal and leave application not yet determined.