24 Aug 2018
Because the company's unsecured liabilities were compromised by a scheme of arrangement and the delay in completion had been resolved, the court found the established criteria for granting a permanent stay and discharging the liquidators were met and therefore ordered the stay and discharge.
21 Sept 2017
The injunction was discharged because Crete failed to adducesolid evidence of a real risk of dissipation; allegations of low commercial morality amounted to propensity evidence insufficient to infer a risk absent conduct close to fraud or dishonesty, and Emirates Shipping's substantial business, assets and the enforceability of awards in relevant jurisdictions made dissipation to evade an award improbable; inclusion of arbitration costs in a Mareva injunction is unusual and unjustified on the material before the court.
7 Jul 2017
Having regard to s.209(1) and authorities, the court was satisfied that the applicant had made out a convincing case: creditors were minimal and effectively waived claims, the sole small external debt was quantified, and the Official Receiver raised no objection; accordingly a permanent stay of the winding up ought to be granted.
16 Oct 1995
The court exercised its discretion to grant a stay of the winding up because the sole known creditor had compromised the claim, the underlying UK judgment had been set aside (undermining the petition basis) and there were unlikely to be assets of substance in Hong Kong making continuation futile, while noting that future cases require evidence to satisfy concerns about commercial morality.
14 Aug 1995
On the material before the court there were insufficient facts or credible evidence to conclude there was a real risk of dissipation or that the defendant had exhibited an unacceptably low standard of commercial morality; accordingly the ex parte Mareva injunction was discharged.
31 Oct 1989
On the evidence the defendant exhibited an unacceptably low standard of commercial morality by entering parallel contracts and misleading the plaintiff without written notice; combined with lack of reciprocity of enforcement with Thailand, this created a real risk that a judgment would remain unsatisfied, justifying continuation of the Mareva injunction.