Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset dissipation risk

Legal area

Court

21 Jun 2013

DBS BANK LTD v. HK JINCHENG INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD

Citation

DBS BANK LTD v. HK JINCHENG INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1069/2013

The court continued the inter partes Mareva (freezing) injunction because the plaintiff's claim raised a serious question to be tried and there was a substantial risk of injustice through dissipation by the defendant; the defendant's absence, nominal capital and suspicious contact details increased that risk, and the plaintiff provided the usual undertaking as to damages.
31 Jul 2012

MACAU FIRST UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONL LTD v. DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS

Citation

MACAU FIRST UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONL LTD v. DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV193/2011

The judge erred in failing to take into account the Consent Order's express preservation of YXA as SB's legal representative and, on re-consideration, the evidence relied upon by the respondent fell well below the threshold of showing an imminent danger of loss or dissipation that would justify appointing receivers; therefore appointment of receivers was not justified in the circumstances.
24 May 2012

JAH v. VH

Citation

JAH v. VH
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4402/2010

The court ruled that the summons was an inter partes application with abridged time rather than an ex parte application and that limited interim asset restraint orders, narrowly tailored to protect assets already the subject of the consent order, were justified pending a full hearing in the High Court; the initial wider order was too broad and is discharged/narrowed; the case is to be transferred to the High Court and costs reserved.
13 Feb 2004

NOKIA FRANCE SA v. IBERICATEL 38 SL AND OTHERS

Citation

NOKIA FRANCE SA v. IBERICATEL 38 SL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3487/2003

The Court found the Plaintiff's tracing raised serious questions that proceeds of the alleged Ibericatel fraud reached the Defendants' Joint Account and that the Defendants' refusal to identify Mainland buyers prevented proper testing of their bona fides; there was no material non-disclosure by the Plaintiff at the ex parte stage; given the serious issues and real risk of dissipation the Mareva injunctions should continue unvaried until trial or further order.
2 Aug 1996

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. and Another

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW348/1996

The original ex parte order appointing provisional liquidators was discharged because the founding affidavit contained a material mis‑statement in breach of the uberrimae fidei duty; however, on a de novo consideration of the public interest and evidence the court reappointed provisional liquidators because the allegations of serious connected transactions, conflict of interest, risk of major asset removal via a requisitioned shareholder meeting and recent attempts to buy minority holdings created a real risk of prejudice to minority shareholders and the public that outweighed the companys so…
5 Apr 1984

JAYSON FINANCE CO LTD v. HELNOND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JAYSON FINANCE CO LTD v. HELNOND LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1170/1984

Court found the plaintiff had an arguable case on ultra vires lending (authority from Rolled Steel Products) but the applicant failed to show a real risk of asset dissipation; applicant's evidence was flimsy and contained non‑disclosures; accordingly the Mareva injunction was discharged and costs awarded to the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

Hong Kong Case Law

DBS BANK LTD v. HK JINCHENG INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD

MACAU FIRST UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONL LTD v. DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS

JAH v. VH

NOKIA FRANCE SA v. IBERICATEL 38 SL AND OTHERS

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD. and Another

JAYSON FINANCE CO LTD v. HELNOND LTD AND OTHERS