KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

KWOK MAY FA v. MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy (and thus a potential constructive trust claim), they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction. Because the risk of dissipation requirement for continuation of a Mareva injunction was not satisfied, the summonses for continuation were dismissed.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 2105
Parties
1st Plaintiff: KWOK LAI SHEUNG; 2nd Plaintiff: KWOK MAY FA; 1st Defendant: MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: SKY JOY INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: CHOI LEE WAN (蔡利雲); 4th Defendant: HO WING LEUNG
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 December 2025
Case Number
DCCJ5985/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Domestic Mareva (freezing) Injunction / Interlocutory – Hearing on Summons for Continuation of Injunction (application Dismissed)
Outcome
Summonses for continuation of the injunctions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Deceit (fraud), Constructive Trust, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Disclosure Orders, Risk of Dissipation, Costs
Source Language
EN
Equity Civil Procedure Trusts Company Law Commercial Fraud Mareva Injunction Deceit (fraud) Constructive Trust +4 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

1st Plaintiff

KWOK MAY FA

2nd Plaintiff

MORE INSURANCE BROKER COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

SKY JOY INDUSTRIES LIMITED

2nd Defendant

CHOI LEE WAN (蔡利雲)

3rd Defendant

HO WING LEUNG

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Interlocutory Application for Continuation of Domestic Mareva (freezing) Injunction / Interlocutory – Hearing on Summons for Continuation of Injunction (application Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs have a good arguable case on deceit, constructive trust and unlawful means conspiracy
  2. 2 Whether there are assets within jurisdiction and a real risk of dissipation such that a Mareva injunction should continue
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours continuation

Ratio Decidendi

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case on deceit and unlawful means conspiracy (and thus a potential constructive trust claim), they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets within the jurisdiction. Because the risk of dissipation requirement for continuation of a Mareva injunction was not satisfied, the summonses for continuation were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summonses for continuation of the injunctions dismissed.

Orders

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