CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

The court confirmed that compensation for loss caused by a wrongly granted Mareva injunction is to be assessed by reference to causation and remoteness principles and that the appropriate remedy for defendants is enforcement of the cross‑undertaking in the original proceedings; an inquiry into such damages can properly be referred to and heard by a Master.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 814
Parties
1st Plaintiff: CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION; 2nd Plaintiff: CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (BVI) LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) LIMITED; 10th Defendant: (Unnamed) LIMITED; 11th Defendant: ISTHOCH ASSETS LIMITED; 12th Defendant: CAST GREAT LIMITED; 13th Defendant: NEW SHANGHAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 March 2019
Case Number
HCA1062/2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Continuation of Mareva Injunction; Appeal to a Judge in Chambers / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (application Stage)
Outcome
Mareva injunction against the 3rd defendant discharged; inquiry into damages to be referred to and heard by a Master; cross‑undertaking to be enforced in the original proceedings
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Cross‑undertaking as to Damages, Assessment of Damages, Causation and Remoteness, Procedure for Damages Inquiry
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Equitable Remedies Damages Mareva Injunction Cross‑undertaking as to Damages Assessment of Damages Causation and Remoteness +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION

1st Plaintiff

CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (BVI) LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

CHINACAST TECHNOLOGY (SHANGHAI) LIMITED

3rd Plaintiff

(Unnamed) LIMITED

10th Defendant

ISTHOCH ASSETS LIMITED

11th Defendant

CAST GREAT LIMITED

12th Defendant

NEW SHANGHAI INVESTMENTS LIMITED

13th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Continuation of Mareva Injunction; Appeal to a Judge in Chambers / Hearing and Reasons for Decision (application Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mareva injunction against the 3rd defendant should be continued
  2. 2 Whether a cross‑undertaking as to damages can be relied upon or gives the defendants any cause of action
  3. 3 Whether an inquiry into damages caused by a wrongfully granted injunction can be heard by a Master

Ratio Decidendi

The court confirmed that compensation for loss caused by a wrongly granted Mareva injunction is to be assessed by reference to causation and remoteness principles and that the appropriate remedy for defendants is enforcement of the cross‑undertaking in the original proceedings; an inquiry into such damages can properly be referred to and heard by a Master.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunction against the 3rd defendant discharged; inquiry into damages to be referred to and heard by a Master; cross‑undertaking to be enforced in the original proceedings

Orders

  • Mareva injunction as against the 3rd defendant discharged
  • Inquiry into damages caused by the injunction to be referred to and heard by a Master to determine causation, remoteness and quantum