18 May 2021
Plaintiff failed to establish misrepresentation, non‑disclosure or sufficient evidence of breach of trust or dishonest assistance by defendant and failed to show defendant cannot suffer loss; no significant change of circumstances was proved; therefore release of the USD 1,000,000 fortification was refused while leave to file the 4th affidavit was granted.
20 Apr 2021
The court ordered limited further discovery by defendants (limited to HK$10,048,695) and ordered Dah Sing Bank to disclose specified banker records under s.21/Bankers' books principles and granted leave to use that information to report to authorities or commence proceedings; the court declined to require fortification of the defendants' undertaking as to damages after assessing the evidence and protection already afforded by sums paid into court; the application for a speedy trial was refused with directions to be considered.
29 Mar 2018
Interim relief was granted limited to restraining defendants’ use in Hong Kong of plaintiffs’ registered NERIUM trade marks and closely similar trade dress because there are serious issues to be tried on infringement, a real risk of irreparable damage to mark distinctiveness and reputation, and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the status quo in Hong Kong; the passing off claim failed for want of sufficient non-trivial Hong Kong goodwill; disputes under the Company Agreement are more appropriately resolved in the United States (Texas); defendants’ summons to set aside servic…
31 Jan 2018
The receivership was discharged insofar as necessary because there was a highly material change of circumstances and material non‑disclosure: a large majority of plaintiffs had sold their beneficial interests and been paid (so no longer required the interim protection), the court had not been informed of these transactions or the origin of funds (raising serious questions about who truly controlled the litigation and purchasers), and the purposes for appointing receivers were substantially frustrated; consequently discharge was appropriate and replacement or split‑voting orders were unnecessa…
31 Jan 2018
The receivership was discharged because there was a highly material change of circumstances and material non‑disclosures: a substantial majority of plaintiffs had contracted to sell and in large part been paid for their beneficial interests (c. 2,090 plaintiffs representing c.306,610 CSI shares) with funds traceable to an interested third party (Tianrui), the litigation and plaintiffs’ instructions were in reality serving purchasers, and the court’s protective rationale for the receivership had been undermined. Given those facts the court exercised its jurisdiction to discharge the receiversh…
23 May 2014
Defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal; the consent payment into court did not preclude variation where liberty to apply was preserved and it was just to uplift the Mareva ceiling to include 12 months' interest at 2% per month; the defendant was not entitled to release of the agreed HK$680,000; plaintiff was the overall successful party on the interlocutory disputes and is awarded costs to be summarily assessed and paid forthwith.
12 Apr 2013
The court found the plaintiff had established a serious question to be tried under Section 60 on the material before the ex parte judge, rejected the 4th defendant's allegations of material non-disclosure and of absence of risk of dissipation, held that delay did not defeat the application given the need for confidentiality, and refused fortification because the 4th defendant failed to provide evidence of likely significant loss or a sound basis for the proposed quantum.
14 Oct 1996
The court found a serious question to be tried based on evidence suggesting an undisclosed interest by Mr Wong and inadequate explanation for nondisclosure; the balance of convenience marginally favored maintaining the injunctions to preserve the status quo pending trial; accordingly the ex parte injunctions were continued but conditioned on plaintiffs providing substantial fortification of their undertaking as to damages.