CANTON PLUS ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TONG ZHENJUN AND OTHERS

CANTON PLUS ENTERPRISE LTD AND ANOTHER v. TONG ZHENJUN AND OTHERS

The stay application was dismissed because defendants failed to justify staying ancillary disclosure orders; the court was not satisfied on the present evidence that Mr Lau beneficially owned and that the Bel‑Air property was unencumbered such that disclosure could be dispensed with; the balance favoured maintaining disclosure orders (with variations) to prevent irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs, and the injunctions were ordered to continue until disposal of the discharge summonses or further order.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 181
Parties
1st Plaintiff (hca 227/2017); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim, HCA 227/2017): Canton Plus Enterprise Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (hca 227/2017); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim, HCA 227/2017): Anais Development Sa; 9th Defendant (hca 227/2017): Profit Far Limited; 10th Defendant (hca 227/2017): Pacific Bulk Shipping Limited; 1st Defendant (hca 227/2017): Tong Zhenjun (童楨軍); 2nd Defendant (hca 227/2017): Liang Pan (梁攀); 3rd Defendant (hca 227/2017); Counterclaim Plaintiff (hca 227/2017); 1st Defendant (hca 1026/2020); 1st Defendant (hca 2132/2020): Lau Wing Yan (劉永人); 4th Defendant (hca 227/2017): Prosperous Elite Ventures Limited (鑫傑創投有限公司); 5th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 6th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Pacific Bulk Cape Company Limited; 6th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 7th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Pacific Bulk Enterprises Company Limited; 7th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 8th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Pacific Bulk Panamax Company Limited; 8th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 9th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Pacific Bulk Supramax Company Limited; 6th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Pacific Bulk Cape Company Limited; 1st Plaintiff (hca 1026/2020); 1st Defendant (counterclaim, HCA 227/2017): Chu Kong (朱江); 2nd Plaintiff (hca 1026/2020): Trenus Oceanway Ltd; 2nd Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Chang Dafa (常大法); 3rd Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Richland International Limited; 4th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Smartplace Limited; 5th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Pacific Bulk Shipping (Cayman) Limited; 10th Defendant (hca 1026/2020): Ecosuccess Limited; Plaintiff (hca 2132/2020): Connect Plus Limited; 2nd Defendant (hca 2132/2020): Yang Haitao; 3rd Defendant (hca 2132/2020): Wat Fung Ying; 4th Defendant (hca 2132/2020): Yan Donghai; 5th Defendant (hca 2132/2020): Go Prosper International Limited; 6th Defendant (hca 2132/2020): Pacific Bulk Lines Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 January 2021
Case Number
HCA227/2017
Procedural Posture
Interim Injunctions (mareva and Proprietary) / Return Day for Ex Parte Injunctions; Stay Application Against Ancillary Disclosure Orders and Discharge Summonses Pending Substantive Argument
Outcome
Stay application dismissed; interlocutory injunctions to continue until disposal of discharge summonses or further order; disclosure orders varied and to remain in force
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Proprietary Injunction, Ancillary Disclosure Orders, Material Non Disclosure, Stay Application, Costs Assessment
Source Language
EN
Civil Company Law Injunctions Civil Procedure Equitable Remedies Mareva Injunction Proprietary Injunction Ancillary Disclosure Orders +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canton Plus Enterprise Limited

1st Plaintiff (hca 227/2017); 2nd Defendant (counterclaim, HCA 227/2017)

Anais Development Sa

2nd Plaintiff (hca 227/2017); 3rd Defendant (counterclaim, HCA 227/2017)

Profit Far Limited

9th Defendant (hca 227/2017)

Pacific Bulk Shipping Limited

10th Defendant (hca 227/2017)

Tong Zhenjun (童楨軍)

1st Defendant (hca 227/2017)

Liang Pan (梁攀)

2nd Defendant (hca 227/2017)

Lau Wing Yan (劉永人)

3rd Defendant (hca 227/2017); Counterclaim Plaintiff (hca 227/2017); 1st Defendant (hca 1026/2020); 1st Defendant (hca 2132/2020)

Prosperous Elite Ventures Limited (鑫傑創投有限公司)

4th Defendant (hca 227/2017)

Pacific Bulk Cape Company Limited

5th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 6th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Pacific Bulk Enterprises Company Limited

6th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 7th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Pacific Bulk Panamax Company Limited

7th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 8th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Pacific Bulk Supramax Company Limited

8th Defendant (hca 227/2017); 9th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Pacific Bulk Cape Company Limited

6th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Chu Kong (朱江)

1st Plaintiff (hca 1026/2020); 1st Defendant (counterclaim, HCA 227/2017)

Trenus Oceanway Ltd

2nd Plaintiff (hca 1026/2020)

Chang Dafa (常大法)

2nd Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Richland International Limited

3rd Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Smartplace Limited

4th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Pacific Bulk Shipping (Cayman) Limited

5th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Ecosuccess Limited

10th Defendant (hca 1026/2020)

Connect Plus Limited

Plaintiff (hca 2132/2020)

Yang Haitao

2nd Defendant (hca 2132/2020)

Wat Fung Ying

3rd Defendant (hca 2132/2020)

Yan Donghai

4th Defendant (hca 2132/2020)

Go Prosper International Limited

5th Defendant (hca 2132/2020)

Pacific Bulk Lines Company Limited

6th Defendant (hca 2132/2020)

Procedural Posture

Interim Injunctions (mareva and Proprietary) / Return Day for Ex Parte Injunctions; Stay Application Against Ancillary Disclosure Orders and Discharge Summonses Pending Substantive Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ancillary disclosure orders should be stayed pending resolution of discharge summonses
  2. 2 Whether defendants have established ownership of Hong Kong properties sufficient to discharge risk underlying mareva injunctions
  3. 3 Whether there was material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge the interlocutory injunctions

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was dismissed because defendants failed to justify staying ancillary disclosure orders; the court was not satisfied on the present evidence that Mr Lau beneficially owned and that the Bel‑Air property was unencumbered such that disclosure could be dispensed with; the balance favoured maintaining disclosure orders (with variations) to prevent irremediable prejudice to plaintiffs, and the injunctions were ordered to continue until disposal of the discharge summonses or further order.

Court Disposition

Stay application dismissed; interlocutory injunctions to continue until disposal of discharge summonses or further order; disclosure orders varied and to remain in force

Orders

  • Stay application dismissed
  • The injunctions granted by Deputy High Court Judge To on 5 January 2021 shall continue until disposal of the discharge summonses or further order