SUN LI v. YU ZHIFENG AND ANOTHER

SUN LI v. YU ZHIFENG AND ANOTHER

The stay application was dismissed as misconceived because the applicant failed to apply first to the Master who made the substantive order and no special circumstances justified departure; the interim-interim proprietary/Mareva injunctions were refused for lack of extreme urgency, unjustified delay, and absence of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 4679
Parties
Plaintiff: Sun Li; 1st Defendant: Yu Zhifeng; 2nd Defendant: Jiang Yuanchun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Case Number
HCA1845/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (recovery of Funds Arising From Alleged Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution and Injunctions Pending Appeal Before Deputy High Court Judge (first Hearing of Summons)
Outcome
Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Summons dismissed; paragraph 2 of the Summons adjourned to a hearing to be fixed with three hours reserved; costs directions given.
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Mareva Injunction, Proprietary Injunction, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Service of Proceedings, Interim Interim Relief
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Fraud Appeal Stay of Execution Mareva Injunction Proprietary Injunction Setting Aside Default Judgment +2 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Li

Plaintiff

Yu Zhifeng

1st Defendant

Jiang Yuanchun

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (recovery of Funds Arising From Alleged Fraud) / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution and Injunctions Pending Appeal Before Deputy High Court Judge (first Hearing of Summons)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a judge should grant a stay of execution pending appeal when applicant did not first apply to the Master who made the order
  2. 2 Whether interim-interim proprietary or Mareva injunction should be granted given alleged fraud and risk of dissipation
  3. 3 Whether there was extreme urgency and absence of delay to justify interim-interim relief

Ratio Decidendi

The stay application was dismissed as misconceived because the applicant failed to apply first to the Master who made the substantive order and no special circumstances justified departure; the interim-interim proprietary/Mareva injunctions were refused for lack of extreme urgency, unjustified delay, and absence of cogent evidence of risk of dissipation given the claimant's essentially monetary claim.

Court Disposition

Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Summons dismissed; paragraph 2 of the Summons adjourned to a hearing to be fixed with three hours reserved; costs directions given.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Summons are dismissed.
  • Paragraph 2 of the Summons is adjourned to a hearing to be fixed (three hours reserved) in consultation with counsel.