RHONDA JEANINE POHN v. MAC RICHARD POHN AND OTHERS

RHONDA JEANINE POHN v. MAC RICHARD POHN AND OTHERS

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the 1st defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s14AA(4)(a): he did not provide full and frank evidence of his financial position or explain the disposition of the US$1.3 million withdrawn from the 2nd defendant despite being given leave to file further affidavit, and he failed to identify any material delay by the plaintiff that would justify varying or discharging the proprietary injunction.

Citation
RHONDA JEANINE POHN v. MAC RICHARD POHN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (suing Personally and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Maxwell Pohn (deceased)): Rhonda Jeanine Pohn; 1st Defendant: Mac Richard Pohn; 2nd Defendant: Leeward Enterprises Limited; 3rd Defendant: GOLDERN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 April 2015
Case Number
HCA1381/2010
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Vary or Discharge a Proprietary Injunction / Interlocutory (leave to Appeal Application Before Court of First Instance)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; application to vary or discharge the proprietary injunction dismissed
Legal Topics
Proprietary Injunction, Leave to Appeal, Full and Frank Disclosure, Variation of Injunction, Delay and Prejudice
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Injunctions Appellate Procedure Proprietary Injunction Leave to Appeal Full and Frank Disclosure Variation of Injunction +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rhonda Jeanine Pohn

Plaintiff (suing Personally and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Maxwell Pohn (deceased))

Mac Richard Pohn

1st Defendant

Leeward Enterprises Limited

2nd Defendant

GOLDERN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal to Vary or Discharge a Proprietary Injunction / Interlocutory (leave to Appeal Application Before Court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s14AA(4)(a) (reasonable prospect of success)
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant provided full and frank evidence of his financial circumstances to justify variation releasing funds
  3. 3 Whether any delay by the plaintiff amounted to prejudice sufficient to justify discharge or variation of the injunction

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the 1st defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success under s14AA(4)(a): he did not provide full and frank evidence of his financial position or explain the disposition of the US$1.3 million withdrawn from the 2nd defendant despite being given leave to file further affidavit, and he failed to identify any material delay by the plaintiff that would justify varying or discharging the proprietary injunction.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; application to vary or discharge the proprietary injunction dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused
  • Application to vary or discharge the proprietary injunction dismissed