HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAI KUEN AND OTHERS

HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAI KUEN AND OTHERS

The court continued the ex parte injunction and varied the Mareva sum to $2,000,000 because on the plaintiffs' best case they were likely to recover at least $1.7m plus interest and further costs, and there was a real risk that transfers by the 4th defendant would frustrate enforcement; therefore interim prohibition on dispositions and the reduced freezing sum were justified.

Citation
HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FONG LAI KUEN AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LIMITED; 1st Defendant: FONG LAI KUEN; 2nd Defendant: FONG CHUNG MO; 3rd Defendant: TSE, COLLINS; 4th Defendant: COSMOS MUTUAL LIMITED; 5th Defendant: REDFORD LIMITED; 6th Defendant: CHAN YUK YING, YENTO; 7th Defendant: CHENG PING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 November 2001
Case Number
HCA4442/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil (injunction/mareva) / Inter Partes Hearing to Continue Ex Parte Injunction (chambers)
Outcome
Ex parte injunction continued and Mareva sum varied downward to $2,000,000; interim injunction against dispositions continued.
Legal Topics
Mareva Order, Freezing Order, Interim Injunction, Costs on Indemnity, Disposition of Property
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Mareva Injunctions Costs Mareva Order Freezing Order Interim Injunction Costs on Indemnity +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOLIDAY RESORTS HOLDING LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO. LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

FONG LAI KUEN

1st Defendant

FONG CHUNG MO

2nd Defendant

TSE, COLLINS

3rd Defendant

COSMOS MUTUAL LIMITED

4th Defendant

REDFORD LIMITED

5th Defendant

CHAN YUK YING, YENTO

6th Defendant

CHENG PING

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (injunction/mareva) / Inter Partes Hearing to Continue Ex Parte Injunction (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate quantum for Mareva freezing order
  2. 2 Whether interim injunction should prohibit dispositions of property
  3. 3 Whether injunction as ordered by Deputy Judge should be continued on inter partes hearing

Ratio Decidendi

The court continued the ex parte injunction and varied the Mareva sum to $2,000,000 because on the plaintiffs' best case they were likely to recover at least $1.7m plus interest and further costs, and there was a real risk that transfers by the 4th defendant would frustrate enforcement; therefore interim prohibition on dispositions and the reduced freezing sum were justified.

Court Disposition

Ex parte injunction continued and Mareva sum varied downward to $2,000,000; interim injunction against dispositions continued.

Orders

  • Continue the ex parte injunction granted by Deputy Judge Longley
  • Vary the Mareva freezing order amount from HKD 3,700,000 to HKD 2,000,000