SKYHIGH INVESTMENT LTD v. YU JUN AND OTHERS

SKYHIGH INVESTMENT LTD v. YU JUN AND OTHERS

On the evidence as a whole the Court was satisfied there was a good arguable case that the Daughter was a party to and had signed the contractual documents and that there was a real risk of dissipation (by the Daughter or by her father Yu exercising control over assets in her name); accordingly interlocutory...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 913
Parties
Plaintiff in HCCT 29/2019; Defendant in HCA 1434/2019: Skyhigh Investment Limited; 1st Defendant: Yu Jun; 2nd Defendant in HCCT 29/2019; Plaintiff in HCA 1434/2019 (the Daughter): Yu Mengying; 3rd Defendant: Yujime Investment Management Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2020
Case Number
HCCT29/2019
Procedural Posture
Injunctions in Aid of Arbitration and Shareholder Dispute / Judgment (decision Dated 1 June 2020)
Outcome
HCA 1434/2019 summons granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3; injunctive and disclosure relief continued against Yu and YJM; injunctions and disclosure orders made against the Daughter in terms of HCA summons.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Chabra Jurisdiction, Freezing Order, Shareholders Agreement, Forgery Allegations, Asset Dissipation, Costs
Source Language
en
Arbitration Civil Procedure Company Law Injunctions (mareva/chabra) Fraud/forgery Commercial Law Mareva Injunction Chabra Jurisdiction +5 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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skyhigh Investment Limited

Plaintiff in HCCT 29/2019; Defendant in HCA 1434/2019

Yu Jun

1st Defendant

Yu Mengying

2nd Defendant in HCCT 29/2019; Plaintiff in HCA 1434/2019 (the Daughter)

Yujime Investment Management Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunctions in Aid of Arbitration and Shareholder Dispute / Judgment (decision Dated 1 June 2020)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Skyhigh has a good arguable case that the Daughter was party to and signed the contractual documents
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify a freezing/Chabra order against the Daughter
  3. 3 Whether injunctional relief should be granted under s21L High Court Ordinance or Chabra jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence as a whole the Court was satisfied there was a good arguable case that the Daughter was a party to and had signed the contractual documents and that there was a real risk of dissipation (by the Daughter or by her father Yu exercising control over assets in her name); accordingly interlocutory freezing and disclosure relief in terms of the HCA summons was justified and granted, and costs allocated against the Daughter for the period after 8 October 2019.

Court Disposition

HCA 1434/2019 summons granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3; injunctive and disclosure relief continued against Yu and YJM; injunctions and disclosure orders made against the Daughter in terms of HCA summons.

Orders

  • Injunctions and disclosure orders granted in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the HCA Summons (freezing/restraint and disclosure in aid of Skyhigh's claims)
  • Injunctions and disclosure orders against Yu and Yujime Investment Management Limited continued