Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dissipation risk

Legal area

Court

9 Jan 2026

DEZUN TRADE COMPANY LTD v. SEHAI TRADING LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2201
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2228/2025

The court granted the injunctions because the uncontested evidence disclosed a good arguable case in constructive trust and unjust enrichment, the USD 600,000 was traceable to the Defendant's frozen account and thus an asset within the jurisdiction, the balance of convenience favoured relief given uncertainty as to Defendant's ability to satisfy a monetary award and the risk of dissipation, and the Plaintiff offered an undertaking as to damages.
11 Jul 2024

CAPITAL CENTURY TEXTILE COMPANY LTD v. LI DIANXIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 651
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV471/2021

The Court refused the stays. The appeals were not shown to be so strong as to justify a stay without more; any arguable appeal did not meet the required additional showing that the appeal would be rendered nugatory because there was no real risk of dissipation (lis pendens registered and CCT's undertakings), and the appellants had been dilatory in seeking stays. Accordingly the balance favoured refusing the stays and ordering costs against the applicants, assessed summarily at HK$80,000 (Mr Li) and HK$100,000 (Mr Cong).
9 Dec 2022

苏州太合汇投資管理有限公司 v. 霍尔果斯市摩伽互联娱乐有限公司

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3657
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1663/2022

Court held Chabra jurisdiction properly invoked under the second limb of Cardile where there is a good arguable case that enforcement processes (liquidation, receivership, charging orders) could render assets of a wholly-owned subsidiary amenable to satisfy the parent’s PRC judgment and that plaintiff established a real risk of dissipation by MMOGA based on accounting inconsistencies, undistributed profits, failure to disclose and director conduct; accordingly the Chabra injunction and ancillary disclosure order should be continued with limited revisions to certain terms.
8 Oct 2021

YAN YU YING v. LEUNG WING HEI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2295/2019

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.
6 Dec 2018

PERFECT AWARD HOLDINGS LTD v. OUYANG YIDA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2654
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA349/2018

The court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a good arguable case on the enforceability of the promissory notes and had established a real risk of dissipation based on the totality of conduct and contemporaneous evidence; accordingly the judge exercised his discretion to continue the ex parte Mareva injunction and refused Ouyang's application to discharge it.
20 Jul 2018

MORAL LUCK FINANCE LTD v. CHEUNG KWAI YIN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1795
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1306/2017

The court continued the post-judgment Mareva injunction until 16 July 2019 because there was a good arguable case, the plaintiff's conduct and failure to comply with disclosure orders permitted an inference of a serious risk of dissipation, and the balance of convenience favored continuation, but the injunction was limited in duration because it is inappropriate to continue a freezing order indefinitely and the applicant must pursue execution mechanisms in due course.
22 Feb 2018

UNIVERSAL EXPORTS GROUP LTD v. ZECHIN TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 283
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2613/2016

On the whole of the evidence the court concluded there was a real risk of dissipation: defendant's statements at the September meeting were objectively threatening, the only known Hong Kong asset was funds in an HSBC account which could be easily dissipated, and the defendant failed to produce solid evidence of Sinosure revocation or a legitimate set-off. Accordingly the continuation of the 2nd Mareva injunction until trial or further order was necessary to prevent a judgment being rendered unsatisfied.
16 Jun 2015

BECKTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. OOI LEAN CHOO

Citation

BECKTON INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. OOI LEAN CHOO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1945/2014

The injunction had ceased to have effect on 8 January 2015 and the defendant had paid substantially into court; the plaintiffs failed to establish a current risk of dissipation or proportionality to justify a second intrusive Mareva order and had acted oppressively; accordingly the application for a new Mareva injunction was refused in the exercise of discretion. The defendant's uncontested payment into court entitled her to discharge and the injunction was to be formally discharged.
18 Sept 2008

INTELLIGENT HOUSE LTD v. CHAN TUNG SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

INTELLIGENT HOUSE LTD v. CHAN TUNG SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDCS11000/2006

The Tribunal held costs should, as a matter of principle, follow the event; China Superior must pay Intelligent House's costs confined to the legal contentions and rebuttal expert evidence it raised (to be taxed at High Court Scale with certificate for two counsel); the Tribunal has jurisdiction under O 62 r 9A to order an interim payment at the conclusion of proceedings where it is just to do so and there is a genuine risk of dissipation, and on the facts an interim payment of HK$1,983,418 was ordered; the Tribunal does not have power under s 4(6)(a)(iii) to direct trustees to pay proceeds t…
24 Dec 2004

DRESDNER BANK (SCHWEIZ) AG v. ANDREAS KESSLER AND ANOTHER

Citation

DRESDNER BANK (SCHWEIZ) AG v. ANDREAS KESSLER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4709/2003

The court found there was a good arguable case that the US$400,000 was stolen and that the 2nd defendant had been reckless or wilfully blind to the tainted nature of the remittance given the repeated unusual remittance pattern and the risk assumed by the remittance agent; the court further found a real risk of dissipation (including a potential liability in excess of net assets), and therefore allowed continuation of the Mareva injunction to the extent of US$400,000 and ordered costs nisi to be in the cause.