AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER

On the evidence there was good reason to conclude Mr Ho substantively controlled assets held in third party names including the Ho Family Trust, he had breached the Mareva/disclosure order and there was real risk of further dissipation; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under established authority to appoint receivers as just, convenient and proportionate ancillary relief to protect assets and enforce disclosure, with specified amendments and safeguards to the draft receivership order.

Citation
AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. HO WING ON, CHRISTOPHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff (in Compulsory Liquidation): Akai Holdings Limited; 2nd to 17th Plaintiffs (as Identified in the Amended Writ of Summons): 2nd to 17th Plaintiffs; 1st Defendant: Ho Wing On, Christopher; 2nd to 20th Defendants (as Identified in the Amended Writ of Summons): 2nd to 20th Defendants; Intervener (trustee of the Ho Family Trust): Accolade, Inc
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2009
Case Number
HCCL37/2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action (receivership/ancillary Relief Arising From Mareva Injunction) / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receiver (chambers Hearing; Judgment on Solicited Application)
Outcome
Receivership order granted (with amendments) as ancillary to the Mareva order; leave to appeal refused; interim stay granted until 5pm on 4 September 2009; costs ordered against the 1st defendant to plaintiffs (to be taxed on a common fund basis); no order as to costs as between Intervener and plaintiffs.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Asset Disclosure, Piercing/control of Discretionary Trusts, Appointment of Receiver, Contempt and Compliance, Third Party Litigation Funding
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions and Mareva Relief Trust Law Company Law Receivership and Enforcement Mareva Injunction Asset Disclosure Piercing/control of Discretionary Trusts +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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Akai Holdings Limited

1st Plaintiff (in Compulsory Liquidation)

2nd to 17th Plaintiffs

2nd to 17th Plaintiffs (as Identified in the Amended Writ of Summons)

Ho Wing On, Christopher

1st Defendant

2nd to 20th Defendants

2nd to 20th Defendants (as Identified in the Amended Writ of Summons)

Accolade, Inc

Intervener (trustee of the Ho Family Trust)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action (receivership/ancillary Relief Arising From Mareva Injunction) / Interlocutory Application for Appointment of Receiver (chambers Hearing; Judgment on Solicited Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the February 2009 Mareva/disclosure order extends to assets held in or via discretionary trusts (Ho Family Trust)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Ho has breached the Mareva order and dissipated assets
  3. 3 Whether an appointment of receivers is just and convenient and proportionate as ancillary relief to the Mareva order

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence there was good reason to conclude Mr Ho substantively controlled assets held in third party names including the Ho Family Trust, he had breached the Mareva/disclosure order and there was real risk of further dissipation; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under established authority to appoint receivers as just, convenient and proportionate ancillary relief to protect assets and enforce disclosure, with specified amendments and safeguards to the draft receivership order.

Court Disposition

Receivership order granted (with amendments) as ancillary to the Mareva order; leave to appeal refused; interim stay granted until 5pm on 4 September 2009; costs ordered against the 1st defendant to plaintiffs (to be taxed on a common fund basis); no order as to costs as between Intervener and plaintiffs.

Orders

  • Appointment of receivers in terms of the draft as amended
  • Amend paragraph 10 to require receiver personal security of HK$300,000 (not HK$250,000)