MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER

The Mareva injunction was continued until trial because the plaintiff demonstrated a strong arguable case for an account and for specific performance of the written undertaking to pay sale proceeds, there was a real risk of dissipation by the defendants and the balance of convenience favoured continuing the restraint with limited living expense allowance and without fortification.

Citation
MARK CLINTON SHARP v. WONG CHI LIK, STEVEN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Mark Clinton Sharp; 1st Defendant: Wong Chi Lik, Steven; 2nd Defendant: Chan Wai Ling, Iris
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 December 2008
Case Number
HCA2215/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Injunction (mareva) / Application to Continue Interlocutory Mareva Injunction and Directions to Trial (pre Trial Stage)
Outcome
Application to continue Mareva injunction granted; Mareva injunction continued until trial; timetable directions and procedural orders made; no fortification ordered; costs in the cause (order nisi in favour of plaintiff).
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Constructive Trust, Account of Partnership, Specific Performance, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Dissipation of Assets, Limitation for Partnership Accounts
Source Language
EN
Civil Equity Partnership Law Injunctions Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Contract Mareva Injunction Constructive Trust +5 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Clinton Sharp

Plaintiff

Wong Chi Lik, Steven

1st Defendant

Chan Wai Ling, Iris

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Injunction (mareva) / Application to Continue Interlocutory Mareva Injunction and Directions to Trial (pre Trial Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interlocutory Mareva injunction should be continued until trial
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff has a strong arguable case entitling him to an account of partnership and/or proprietary relief
  3. 3 Whether the defendants pose a real risk of dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Mareva injunction was continued until trial because the plaintiff demonstrated a strong arguable case for an account and for specific performance of the written undertaking to pay sale proceeds, there was a real risk of dissipation by the defendants and the balance of convenience favoured continuing the restraint with limited living expense allowance and without fortification.

Court Disposition

Application to continue Mareva injunction granted; Mareva injunction continued until trial; timetable directions and procedural orders made; no fortification ordered; costs in the cause (order nisi in favour of plaintiff).

Orders

  • Mareva injunction continued until trial restraining defendants from disposing of assets in Hong Kong up to HKD 4,962,914.35
  • Statement of claim to be filed within 14 days