WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. v. COMM-PASS HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS

WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. v. COMM-PASS HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS

The plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case based on tracing evidence, risk of dissipation was properly inferable, service was effective, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation. Accordingly the court continued the ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunctions as specified: continued against all defendants in HCA 252/2020 until further order or three months after the conclusion of trial whichever is earlier; continued against defendants 2 to 6 in HCA 384/2020; the injunction against defendant 1 in HCA 384/2020 was not continued by consent upon its undertaking.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 584
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 252 & HCA 384): WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC.; 1st Defendant (hca 252/2020): UNITED TOP PROPERTIES LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (hca 252/2020): YONG HO HING CO., LIMITED; 3rd Defendant (hca 252/2020): XT IMPORT AND EXPORT LIMITED; 4th Defendant (hca 252/2020): KONGKONG GROUP CO., LIMITED; 1st Defendant (hca 384/2020): COMM-PASS HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant (hca 384/2020): LEADER HILL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant (hca 384/2020): CHIEF ONE (HK) TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED; 4th Defendant (hca 384/2020): GADLI LIMITED; 5th Defendant (hca 384/2020): JIACHEN INDUSTRY (HK) LIMITED; 6th Defendant (hca 384/2020): SILVER EXPRESS INVESTMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 April 2020
Case Number
HCA384/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Continuation of Ex Parte Proprietary and Mareva Injunctions and Bankers' Records Order / Return Date for Inter Partes Continuation of Ex Parte Injunctions and Bankers' Records Order
Outcome
Interim relief continued in part: injunctions continued where supported by tracing evidence and risk of dissipation; one defendant obtained non-continuance by consent.
Legal Topics
Proprietary Injunction, Mareva Injunction, Interim Relief, Impersonation/email Fraud, Asset Tracing, Bankers' Records Order
Source Language
EN
Civil Injunctions Commercial Fraud Asset Tracing Banking Procedure Proprietary Injunction Mareva Injunction Interim Relief +2 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC.

Plaintiff (hca 252 & HCA 384)

UNITED TOP PROPERTIES LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca 252/2020)

YONG HO HING CO., LIMITED

2nd Defendant (hca 252/2020)

XT IMPORT AND EXPORT LIMITED

3rd Defendant (hca 252/2020)

KONGKONG GROUP CO., LIMITED

4th Defendant (hca 252/2020)

COMM-PASS HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant (hca 384/2020)

LEADER HILL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED

2nd Defendant (hca 384/2020)

CHIEF ONE (HK) TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED

3rd Defendant (hca 384/2020)

GADLI LIMITED

4th Defendant (hca 384/2020)

JIACHEN INDUSTRY (HK) LIMITED

5th Defendant (hca 384/2020)

SILVER EXPRESS INVESTMENT LIMITED

6th Defendant (hca 384/2020)

Procedural Posture

Civil Continuation of Ex Parte Proprietary and Mareva Injunctions and Bankers' Records Order / Return Date for Inter Partes Continuation of Ex Parte Injunctions and Bankers' Records Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff established a good arguable case to continue ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunctions
  2. 2 Whether there was a real risk of dissipation of assets such that interlocutory freezing orders should be continued
  3. 3 Whether service of documents on defendants was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case based on tracing evidence, risk of dissipation was properly inferable, service was effective, and the balance of convenience favoured continuation. Accordingly the court continued the ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunctions as specified: continued against all defendants in HCA 252/2020 until further order or three months after the conclusion of trial whichever is earlier; continued against defendants 2 to 6 in HCA 384/2020; the injunction against defendant 1 in HCA 384/2020 was not continued by consent upon its undertaking.

Court Disposition

Interim relief continued in part: injunctions continued where supported by tracing evidence and risk of dissipation; one defendant obtained non-continuance by consent.

Orders

  • Continue the proprietary and Mareva injunction against all defendants in HCA 252/2020 until further order or three months after conclusion of the trial herein, whichever is earlier.
  • In HCA 384/2020, do not continue the injunction against the 1st defendant by consent upon its undertaking.