INTRAPACIFIC LTD v. CREATE MOOD LTD AND OTHERS

INTRAPACIFIC LTD v. CREATE MOOD LTD AND OTHERS

Plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and a clear inferred risk of dissipation; balance of convenience favored continuation; service out of jurisdiction was valid and retrospective leave under Order 11 rule 9 was granted; accordingly the interim Mareva/proprietary injunction was continued and the ceiling against D3 was varied downward to reflect the stopped transfer.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2877
Parties
Plaintiff: INTRAPACIFIC LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CREATE MOOD LTD; 2nd Defendant: SB SERVICES 247 LTD; 3rd Defendant: NOVOLEX SP. ZO. O.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Case Number
HCA1968/2019
Procedural Posture
Mareva/proprietary Injunction Application / Return Date and Variation Hearing (continuation of Interim Injunction)
Outcome
Injunction continued as varied; retrospective leave for service out of jurisdiction granted; ceiling against D3 varied to EUR550,000; costs to be plaintiff's costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Proprietary Injunction, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Variation of Injunction, Asset Restraint, Fraudulent Transfer
Source Language
EN
Civil Injunctions Fraud Private International Law Mareva Injunction Proprietary Injunction Service Out of Jurisdiction Variation of Injunction +2 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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INTRAPACIFIC LIMITED

Plaintiff

CREATE MOOD LTD

1st Defendant

SB SERVICES 247 LTD

2nd Defendant

NOVOLEX SP. ZO. O.

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Mareva/proprietary Injunction Application / Return Date and Variation Hearing (continuation of Interim Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to vary the ceiling amount restrained against D3
  2. 2 Whether to grant retrospective leave for service out of jurisdiction of the summons and related documents
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and risk of dissipation sufficient to continue the Mareva/proprietary injunction

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and a clear inferred risk of dissipation; balance of convenience favored continuation; service out of jurisdiction was valid and retrospective leave under Order 11 rule 9 was granted; accordingly the interim Mareva/proprietary injunction was continued and the ceiling against D3 was varied downward to reflect the stopped transfer.

Court Disposition

Injunction continued as varied; retrospective leave for service out of jurisdiction granted; ceiling against D3 varied to EUR550,000; costs to be plaintiff's costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Continue the Mareva/proprietary injunction as varied
  • Vary the ceiling amount restrained against D3 to EUR550,000