PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHIO HO-CHEONG AND OTHERS

PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHIO HO-CHEONG AND OTHERS

The court admitted ICAC-originated material where it conveyed information rather than mere conclusion, found there was a strong and good arguable case that each of the 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants were involved in the Asiagreat transactions supporting claims of conspiracy or dishonest assistance, concluded there was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PECONIC INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. CHIO HO-CHEONG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant; 3rd Defendant: 3rd Defendant; 4th Defendant: 4th Defendant; 5th Defendant: 5th Defendant; Intervenor: Mr Chan Wing Chan Lawrence
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 March 2000
Case Number
HCA16255/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding for Mareva Injunction (freezing Order) Ancillary to Claims in Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Proprietary Remedies / Interlocutory Applications to Continue Mareva Injunction and Application to Discharge Injunction (hearings 8–9 March 2000)
Outcome
Mareva injunctions against the 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants continued until conclusion of trial or further order; 4th defendant's application to discharge injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Freezing Order, Constructive Trust, Dishonest Assistance, Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence, Non Disclosure, Dissipation of Assets, Undertaking in Damages
Source Language
en
Equity Trusts Injunctions Civil Procedure Fraud Company Law Mareva Injunction Freezing Order +6 more

Source-derived case record

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 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

3rd Defendant

3rd Defendant

4th Defendant

4th Defendant

5th Defendant

5th Defendant

Mr Chan Wing Chan Lawrence

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceeding for Mareva Injunction (freezing Order) Ancillary to Claims in Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Proprietary Remedies / Interlocutory Applications to Continue Mareva Injunction and Application to Discharge Injunction (hearings 8–9 March 2000)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff has a good arguable case against each defendant
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets such that a judgment would be unsatisfied
  3. 3 Admissibility of ICAC-originated material in interlocutory affidavits

Ratio Decidendi

The court admitted ICAC-originated material where it conveyed information rather than mere conclusion, found there was a strong and good arguable case that each of the 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants were involved in the Asiagreat transactions supporting claims of conspiracy or dishonest assistance, concluded there was a real risk of asset dissipation absent a freezing order, found the plaintiff's undertaking in damages and assets adequate, and held alleged omissions were not material non-disclosure warranting discharge; accordingly the Mareva injunctions should continue and the 4th defendant's discharge application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Mareva injunctions against the 2nd, 4th and 5th defendants continued until conclusion of trial or further order; 4th defendant's application to discharge injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Mr Justice Stone dated 13 October/13 November 1999 and extensions by Mr Justice Yeung on 15 October and 5 November 1999 continued until conclusion of trial or further order
  • Costs of the applications to continue the injunction to be in the cause