PRIMUS PACIFIC PARTNERS (GP1) LP AND ANOTHER v. LI, WENLEI AND ANOTHER

PRIMUS PACIFIC PARTNERS (GP1) LP AND ANOTHER v. LI, WENLEI AND ANOTHER

The court discharged the Dec 2016 Mareva injunction and refused continuation because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case on the merits, failed to make full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application, and did not show sufficient evidence of deliberate concealment under s26 Cap 347 or a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PRIMUS PACIFIC PARTNERS (GP1) LP AND ANOTHER v. LI, WENLEI AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Primus Pacific Partners (GP1) LP; 2nd Plaintiff: Primus Pacific Partners Investments 3 Ltd; 1st Defendant: Li, Wenlei; 2nd Defendant: Chen, Ningdi
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 May 2017
Case Number
HCA3373/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Injunction Application (mareva/freezing Order) / Application to Continue Mareva Injunction After Ex Parte Order; Inter Partes Hearing; Decision on Continuation and Variation
Outcome
Dec 2016 injunction discharged; application to continue and to vary the injunction refused; costs order nisi made in favour of 2nd defendant
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Freezing Order, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Full and Frank Disclosure, Limitation Period (s26 Cap 347), Conflict of Interest
Source Language
en
Injunctions Equity Commercial Law Civil Procedure Company/finance Law Limitation Law Mareva Injunction Freezing Order +4 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Primus Pacific Partners (GP1) LP

1st Plaintiff

Primus Pacific Partners Investments 3 Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Li, Wenlei

1st Defendant

Chen, Ningdi

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Injunction Application (mareva/freezing Order) / Application to Continue Mareva Injunction After Ex Parte Order; Inter Partes Hearing; Decision on Continuation and Variation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether plaintiffs established a good arguable case
  2. 2 whether defendants deliberately concealed facts so s26 Limitation Ordinance (Cap 347) delays limitation
  3. 3 whether plaintiffs made full and frank disclosure on the ex parte application

Ratio Decidendi

The court discharged the Dec 2016 Mareva injunction and refused continuation because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case on the merits, failed to make full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application, and did not show sufficient evidence of deliberate concealment under s26 Cap 347 or a substantial risk of asset dissipation to justify continuation or extension of the freezing order.

Court Disposition

Dec 2016 injunction discharged; application to continue and to vary the injunction refused; costs order nisi made in favour of 2nd defendant

Orders

  • The Mareva injunction granted on 21 December 2016 is discharged.
  • The plaintiffs' application to continue and to vary the Dec 2016 injunction is refused.