Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Order 44a (absconding debtor)

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 1983

FONG MING v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONG MING v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10014/1983

Although plaintiffs established a good arguable case, on the whole of the evidence there was insufficient real risk of removal or dissipation of assets (and the trust/proprietary claims were weak and delayed) to justify continuation of the ex parte Mareva injunctions; the facts did not warrant interlocutory proprietary injunctions or exceptional pre-pleading discovery; Order 44A relief did not apply.
16 Sept 1983

LANGCORK LTD v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LANGCORK LTD v. YAT MING INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10514/1983

The court held that although plaintiffs had established a good arguable case, the balance of convenience, the passage of time, the vagueness and delay in the claims, and absence of convincing evidence of a real risk of dissipation or removal of identifiable trust funds meant the ex parte Mareva injunctions should not be continued; proprietary injunctions and pre-pleading discovery were not justified on the facts; no material non-disclosure was found to set aside the ex parte orders; Order 44A did not apply.