EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI AND OTHERS

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI AND OTHERS

The injunction was varied because the contested sum was paid by the plaintiffs pursuant to a costs order intended to give the 1st defendant (and his solicitors) immediate recovery of costs as a sanction for the plaintiffs' non-disclosure; permitting payment would not dissipate the defendant's assets or frustrate enforcement of any judgment and the plaintiffs' solicitors had previously agreed to that interpretation, so overall justice required variation.

Citation
EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER v. WONG SIN LAI AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaims): Excel Courage Holdings Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (original Action): Hung Ka Leung; 1st Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim by Wong Tam Yee); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim by Sun Xiao Xiang): Wong Sin Lai (also known as Wong Sin Lei; formerly Wong Tam Yee); 2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim by Sun Xiao Xiang): Sun Xiao Xiang; 3rd Defendant (original Action): Tsang Man Ho Alvin; 4th Defendant (original Action): Wong Tsz Kin; 5th Defendant (original Action): Tsang Wing Ho Ringo; 3rd Defendant (counterclaims): Lau Chi Yuen Joseph
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 August 2015
Case Number
HCCL34/2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action Involving Mareva Injunction and Counterclaims / Chambers Application to Vary Mareva Injunction (decision)
Outcome
Application granted: Mareva injunction varied to permit payment to the 1st defendant's solicitors
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Variation of Injunction, Costs Orders, Disclosure/non Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Civil Commercial Injunctions Costs Mareva Injunction Variation of Injunction Costs Orders Disclosure/non Disclosure

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Excel Courage Holdings Limited

1st Plaintiff (original Action); 1st Defendant (counterclaims)

Hung Ka Leung

2nd Plaintiff (original Action)

Wong Sin Lai (also known as Wong Sin Lei; formerly Wong Tam Yee)

1st Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim by Wong Tam Yee); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim by Sun Xiao Xiang)

Sun Xiao Xiang

2nd Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim by Sun Xiao Xiang)

Tsang Man Ho Alvin

3rd Defendant (original Action)

Wong Tsz Kin

4th Defendant (original Action)

Tsang Wing Ho Ringo

5th Defendant (original Action)

Lau Chi Yuen Joseph

3rd Defendant (counterclaims)

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action Involving Mareva Injunction and Counterclaims / Chambers Application to Vary Mareva Injunction (decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mareva injunction should be varied to permit payment of taxed costs held by the defendant's solicitors
  2. 2 Whether payment would risk dissipation of assets or frustrate enforcement of any judgment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had to adduce evidence of unfrozen assets outside the jurisdiction before variation

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was varied because the contested sum was paid by the plaintiffs pursuant to a costs order intended to give the 1st defendant (and his solicitors) immediate recovery of costs as a sanction for the plaintiffs' non-disclosure; permitting payment would not dissipate the defendant's assets or frustrate enforcement of any judgment and the plaintiffs' solicitors had previously agreed to that interpretation, so overall justice required variation.

Court Disposition

Application granted: Mareva injunction varied to permit payment to the 1st defendant's solicitors

Orders

  • The Mareva injunction is varied to permit the 1st defendant to apply HK$937,811.10 currently held by his solicitors towards settlement of their outstanding costs incurred in this action
  • The 1st defendant to file a supplemental affirmation confirming he has no assets overseas