31 May 2018
CHEN HONGQING v. MI JINGTIAN AND OTHERS
- Citation
- [2018] HKCFI 1169
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMP962/2017
The BDO Receivers were discharged because the plaintiff had presented a materially misleading case to the original judge by withholding Confirmations and advancing inconsistent factual positions, and because subsequent developments (plaintiff asserting beneficial ownership, the notary deposit/attempted repayment, and binding undertakings from defendants and ACC) amounted to a material change of circumstances such that continuation of the receivership was no longer necessary or proportionate; the undertakings provided adequate protection pending arbitration.