TSAI LEE TING AND ANOTHER v. BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND OTHERS

TSAI LEE TING AND ANOTHER v. BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LTD AND OTHERS

At interlocutory stage the court found a good arguable case of fraud and that representative proceedings were properly constituted for the common issue that the investment products were fraudulent; however plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case as to quantum sufficient to justify Mareva injunctions at...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2124
Parties
1st Plaintiff (representative): TSAI LEE TING (蔡麗婷); 2nd Plaintiff (representative): LEE PING CHEN (李秉宸); 1st Defendant: BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LIMITED (百麗貴金屬有限公司); 2nd Defendant: BEST LEADER MARKETS PTY LIMITED (Australian company); 3rd Defendant: BEST LEADER MARKETS PTY LIMITED (Hong Kong company); 4th Defendant: BEST LEADER GLOBAL MARKET NZ LIMITED; 5th Defendant: BEST LEADER GLOBAL STRATEGY LIMITED (百麗環球策略有限公司); 6th Defendant: IMPERIAL COMPANY GLOBAL LIMITED (安柏環球有限公司); 7th Defendant: OVER EASY CREATION LIMITED; 8th Defendant: CHAN KA WO (陳嘉和); 9th Defendant: TSANG KAI HUNG (曾啟洪); 10th Defendant: HUNG SO FONG (洪素芳)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Case Number
HCA102/2023
Procedural Posture
Representative Civil Action for Fraud, Restitution, Proprietary Remedies and Conspiracy / Interlocutory Hearing (continuation Summons and Discharge Summons)
Outcome
Interim relief partially granted and partially discharged: Mareva injunctions discharged/declined for individuals D8, D9, D10; proprietary injunctions continued against companies D1, D4, D5; representative action allowed to proceed on common issues; costs orders nisi made.
Legal Topics
Ponzi Scheme, Mareva Injunction, Proprietary Injunction, Representative Proceedings (rhc O.15 R.12), Double Actionability Rule, Material Non‑disclosure, Constructive and Resulting Trust, Rescission, Restitution, Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Fraud Injunctions Trusts and Restitution Civil Procedure Cross‑border Torts Ponzi Scheme Mareva Injunction Proprietary Injunction +7 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSAI LEE TING (蔡麗婷)

1st Plaintiff (representative)

LEE PING CHEN (李秉宸)

2nd Plaintiff (representative)

BEST LEADER PRECIOUS METALS LIMITED (百麗貴金屬有限公司)

1st Defendant

BEST LEADER MARKETS PTY LIMITED (Australian company)

2nd Defendant

BEST LEADER MARKETS PTY LIMITED (Hong Kong company)

3rd Defendant

BEST LEADER GLOBAL MARKET NZ LIMITED

4th Defendant

BEST LEADER GLOBAL STRATEGY LIMITED (百麗環球策略有限公司)

5th Defendant

IMPERIAL COMPANY GLOBAL LIMITED (安柏環球有限公司)

6th Defendant

OVER EASY CREATION LIMITED

7th Defendant

CHAN KA WO (陳嘉和)

8th Defendant

TSANG KAI HUNG (曾啟洪)

9th Defendant

HUNG SO FONG (洪素芳)

10th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Representative Civil Action for Fraud, Restitution, Proprietary Remedies and Conspiracy / Interlocutory Hearing (continuation Summons and Discharge Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs showed a good arguable case of fraud and involvement of relevant defendants in an alleged Ponzi scheme
  2. 2 Whether representative proceedings were properly constituted under RHC O.15 r.12 (same interest)
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs established a good arguable case as to quantum to justify Mareva injunctions and appropriate monetary ceiling

Ratio Decidendi

At interlocutory stage the court found a good arguable case of fraud and that representative proceedings were properly constituted for the common issue that the investment products were fraudulent; however plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a good arguable case as to quantum sufficient to justify Mareva injunctions at the claimed ceiling and had not adequately disclosed the potential double actionability defence at the ex parte stage; accordingly Mareva injunctions against D8 and D10 were not continued and the Mareva against D9 was discharged, while proprietary injunctions were continued against D1, D4 and D5 where a serious issue to be tried and traceability of funds was shown.

Court Disposition

Interim relief partially granted and partially discharged: Mareva injunctions discharged/declined for individuals D8, D9, D10; proprietary injunctions continued against companies D1, D4, D5; representative action allowed to proceed on common issues; costs orders nisi made.

Orders

  • Decline to continue Mareva injunction against 8th Defendant Chan Ka Wo
  • Discharge Mareva injunction against 9th Defendant Tsang Kai Hung