15 Jul 2025
Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the specific Sum or any identifiable traceable proceeds remained under the 68th Defendant's control and failed to establish an objective real risk of unjustified dissipation by the 68th Defendant; therefore the proprietary and Mareva injunctions were discharged as to the 68th Defendant.
11 May 2023
The court granted the preservation and ancillary disclosure and repayment relief because the plaintiff's case concerns co-control and ownership of half the company and its assets such that the Company's assets are bona fide the subject matter of the proceedings; a preservation order is available as ancillary interlocutory relief without the plaintiff having to assert proprietary title or pursue a derivative action and without meeting Mareva's dissipation threshold, and therefore the order in terms of the summons was appropriate to maintain the status quo pending trial.
8 Oct 2021
Plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried and, given the lapse of police no consent letters and indications defendant may use the Bitcoins to fund legal costs, the balance of fairness favoured granting an interim proprietary injunction preserving the Subject Bitcoins in the defendant's possession, custody or control; a Mareva injunction was refused; disclosure and scope of the order were confined to Bitcoins actually in defendant's possession, custody or control as the measure is a stopgap pending the substantive hearing.
4 Apr 2019
The court expressed serious doubt that consolidation was appropriate or expedient given the distinct issues, parallel foreign proceedings and procedural irregularities alleged; the judge declined to treat consolidation as plainly suitable without further consideration and reserved substantive determination pending fuller resolution of service and grant validity issues.
10 Apr 2002
Defendants had not submitted to Hong Kong jurisdiction by their defensive opposition to interim relief and by obtaining extensions; the forum clause in the Deed was not an exclusive clause because it lacked necessary particularity; defendants failed to identify a specific alternative US forum and discharged no evidential burden under Spiliada; accordingly the stay application was dismissed and proceedings will continue in Hong Kong.