JS MICROELECTRONICS LTD v. ACHHADA DILIP G AND ANOTHER

JS MICROELECTRONICS LTD v. ACHHADA DILIP G AND ANOTHER

At the interlocutory return hearing the court found there was a good arguable case that justified continuation of the Mareva injunction; there was no material non-disclosure to the ex parte judge and it was not plain and obvious that the amended claim must fail or be struck out. Accordingly the Mareva injunction was continued and the 2nd defendant's application was dismissed, with costs ordered nisi.

Citation
JS MICROELECTRONICS LTD v. ACHHADA DILIP G AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: JS Microelectronics Limited; 1st Defendant: Achhada Dilip G; 2nd Defendant: Puri Vikas
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Case Number
HCA1202/2012
Procedural Posture
High Court Action Concerning Continuation of Mareva Injunction and Interlocutory Strike Out Application / Return Hearing of Ex Parte Mareva Injunction (interlocutory)
Outcome
2nd defendant's application dismissed; Mareva injunction continued in same terms until trial or further order; order nisi as to costs for the 2nd defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the two applications
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Constructive Trust, Knowing Receipt, Tracing, Change of Position Defence, Fraud, Non Disclosure in Ex Parte Applications, Pleading of Knowledge
Source Language
EN
Civil Litigation Equity Injunctions Trusts and Restitution Commercial Fraud Interlocutory Procedures Mareva Injunction Constructive Trust +6 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JS Microelectronics Limited

Plaintiff

Achhada Dilip G

1st Defendant

Puri Vikas

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Action Concerning Continuation of Mareva Injunction and Interlocutory Strike Out Application / Return Hearing of Ex Parte Mareva Injunction (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mareva injunction should be continued or discharged
  2. 2 Whether the amended statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action and should be struck out
  3. 3 Whether a constructive trust (as opposed to a resulting trust) arose over the funds

Ratio Decidendi

At the interlocutory return hearing the court found there was a good arguable case that justified continuation of the Mareva injunction; there was no material non-disclosure to the ex parte judge and it was not plain and obvious that the amended claim must fail or be struck out. Accordingly the Mareva injunction was continued and the 2nd defendant's application was dismissed, with costs ordered nisi.

Court Disposition

2nd defendant's application dismissed; Mareva injunction continued in same terms until trial or further order; order nisi as to costs for the 2nd defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the two applications

Orders

  • Mareva injunction continued in the same terms until after trial or until further order
  • Application of the 2nd defendant dismissed