KWOK LAI SHEUNG v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

KWOK LAI SHEUNG v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy and pleaded a constructive trust claim contingent on deceit, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction; absent such risk the continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions could not be justified and the summonses for continuation were dismissed.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 2105
Parties
Plaintiff (dccj 5984/2024): KWOK LAI SHEUNG; Plaintiff (dccj 5985/2024): KWOK MAY FA; 1st Defendant: MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: SKY JOY INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: CHOI LEE WAN; 4th Defendant: HO WING LEUNG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Case Number
DCCJ5984/2024
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Ex Parte Mareva Injunctions in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Summons for Continuation of Injunctions Until Trial (interlocutory)
Outcome
Summonses for continuation of the ex parte injunctions dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Deceit (fraud), Constructive Trust, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Disclosure Orders, Risk of Dissipation, Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
EN
Civil Litigation Equity Company Law Trusts Commercial Fraud Injunctions Mareva Injunction Deceit (fraud) +5 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KWOK LAI SHEUNG

Plaintiff (dccj 5984/2024)

KWOK MAY FA

Plaintiff (dccj 5985/2024)

MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

SKY JOY INDUSTRIES LIMITED

2nd Defendant

CHOI LEE WAN

3rd Defendant

HO WING LEUNG

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Ex Parte Mareva Injunctions in Civil Proceedings / Hearing on Summons for Continuation of Injunctions Until Trial (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs have a good arguable case on claims of deceit, constructive trust and unlawful means conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether there are assets in jurisdiction and a real risk of dissipation warranting continuation of Mareva injunctions
  3. 3 Whether balance of convenience favors continuation and whether plaintiffs complied with duty of full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy and pleaded a constructive trust claim contingent on deceit, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction; absent such risk the continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions could not be justified and the summonses for continuation were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summonses for continuation of the ex parte injunctions dismissed

Orders

  • The summonses for continuation of the injunction orders are dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs shall pay the defendants' costs of the summonses with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed