SUN YAN v. SUPERB JADE LTD AND OTHERS

SUN YAN v. SUPERB JADE LTD AND OTHERS

The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving a real likelihood of significant loss arising from the Mareva injunction; the $1,000,000 fortification previously paid is sufficient to protect the applicants (principally as protection against costs), and the summons for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success nor other reason in the interests of justice.

Citation
SUN YAN v. SUPERB JADE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (by Original Action): Sun; Defendants/applicants (by Original Action): 1st and 2nd Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2016
Case Number
HCA813/2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application Concerning Mareva Injunction and Fortification; Summons for Leave to Appeal / Application for Further Fortification and Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)
Outcome
Summons dated 6 November 2015 (as amended) for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fortification, Mareva Injunction, Leave to Appeal, Security for Costs, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Judicial Discretion
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Appeals Securities Litigation Fortification Mareva Injunction Leave to Appeal +3 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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun

Plaintiff (by Original Action)

1st and 2nd Defendants

Defendants/applicants (by Original Action)

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application Concerning Mareva Injunction and Fortification; Summons for Leave to Appeal / Application for Further Fortification and Leave to Appeal (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown a real likelihood of significant loss as a result of the Mareva injunction warranting further fortification
  2. 2 Whether the applicants satisfied the test for leave to appeal (reasonable prospect of success or other reason in interest of justice)
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied the law or evidence or acted outside permissible discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving a real likelihood of significant loss arising from the Mareva injunction; the $1,000,000 fortification previously paid is sufficient to protect the applicants (principally as protection against costs), and the summons for leave to appeal is dismissed because the proposed appeal has no reasonable prospect of success nor other reason in the interests of justice.

Court Disposition

Summons dated 6 November 2015 (as amended) for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Amendments to Draft Notice of Appeal (summons dated 5 January 2016) allowed with costs to Sun
  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed with costs and certificate for two counsel, to be taxed if not agreed