GOURAND SAS v. HK YONG JIU CHANG TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

GOURAND SAS v. HK YONG JIU CHANG TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

The court held that the plaintiff had shown a good arguable case in respect of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, the opposing defendants' claims of innocent receipt were insufficiently supported and gave rise to adverse inference, and the balance of convenience favored continuing the injunction to prevent real risk of dissipation; accordingly the ex parte injunction was continued until judgment or further order.

Citation
GOURAND SAS v. HK YONG JIU CHANG TRADE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Omi gP; 1st Defendant: HK Yong Jiu Chang; 2nd Defendant: 2nd defendant; 3rd Defendant: 3rd defendant; 4th Defendant: 4th defendant; 5th Defendant: 5th defendant; 6th Defendant: 6th defendant; 7th Defendant: 7th defendant; 8th Defendant: 8th defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 2014
Case Number
HCA189/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Fraud and Recovery Action / Interlocutory Application to Continue Ex Parte Injunction (interim)
Outcome
Ex parte injunction continued until judgment or further order; costs order nisi in favour of the plaintiff; D3's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Transfer, Unjust Enrichment, Constructive Trust, Tracing, Interim Injunctions, Balance of Convenience, Bona Fide Recipient Defence
Source Language
EN
Civil Equity Commercial Law Injunctions Fraudulent Transfer Unjust Enrichment Constructive Trust Tracing +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Omi gP

Plaintiff

HK Yong Jiu Chang

1st Defendant

2nd defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd defendant

3rd Defendant

4th defendant

4th Defendant

5th defendant

5th Defendant

6th defendant

6th Defendant

7th defendant

7th Defendant

8th defendant

8th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fraud and Recovery Action / Interlocutory Application to Continue Ex Parte Injunction (interim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case on unjust enrichment and constructive trust
  2. 2 Whether the opposing defendants were bona fide recipients for value in good faith
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favors continuing or discharging the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff had shown a good arguable case in respect of unjust enrichment and constructive trust, the opposing defendants' claims of innocent receipt were insufficiently supported and gave rise to adverse inference, and the balance of convenience favored continuing the injunction to prevent real risk of dissipation; accordingly the ex parte injunction was continued until judgment or further order.

Court Disposition

Ex parte injunction continued until judgment or further order; costs order nisi in favour of the plaintiff; D3's costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.

Orders

  • Continue the ex parte injunction until judgment in the action or further order
  • Costs order nisi that the costs of this application be the plaintiff's costs in the cause pursuant to Ord 42 r 5B(6)