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 application to vary the 12 May 2017 order was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a distinct case against the 1st defendant or to quantify monetary loss required to establish the likelihood of a money judgment for a Mareva injunction; the alleged conflict of interest was insufficient to sustain freezing relief, so the 12 May order stands.

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
6 June 2017
Case Number
HCA3373/2016
Procedural Posture
High Court Action (mareva Injunction) / Application to Vary/discharge Interlocutory Injunction After Decision of 12 May 2017
Outcome
Application to vary the 12 May 2017 order dismissed; the 12 May 2017 order stands.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Variation of Order, Slip Rule (rhc Ord 20 R 11), Conflict of Interest, Jurisdiction to Vary Interlocutory Orders
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Equity Commercial Law Mareva Injunction Variation of Order Slip Rule (rhc Ord 20 R 11) Conflict of Interest +1 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
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

High Court Action (mareva Injunction) / Application to Vary/discharge Interlocutory Injunction After Decision of 12 May 2017

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 12 May 2017 order discharging the Mareva injunction should be varied as against the 1st defendant
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction to reconsider or vary an interlocutory injunction granted ex parte
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs had presented a distinct case against the 1st defendant separate from the 2nd defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The application to vary the 12 May 2017 order was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a distinct case against the 1st defendant or to quantify monetary loss required to establish the likelihood of a money judgment for a Mareva injunction; the alleged conflict of interest was insufficient to sustain freezing relief, so the 12 May order stands.

Court Disposition

Application to vary the 12 May 2017 order dismissed; the 12 May 2017 order stands.

Orders

  • 12 May 2017 order discharging the Mareva injunction remains in force (no variation as to 1st defendant)
  • Application to vary the order dismissed