2 Apr 2026
EMBURSE INC v. GOLD SPRING GROUP HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- [2026] HKCFI 2032
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA495/2026
The injunctions against the 2nd Defendant were discharged because the plaintiff failed to adduce reasonable evidence that the specific funds remained under the 2nd Defendant's control (defeating the proprietary claim), there was no solid evidence of a real risk of dissipation (defeating the Mareva claim), and the ex parte application involved material non-disclosure and an unfortified undertaking which, together with the disproportionate disruption to the trustee's legitimate business, militated against continuing the freezing relief.