Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Freezing injunction (mareva)

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2025

CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 897
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1080/2024

The Confidentiality Summons was dismissed because the applicant failed to meet the high necessity threshold to restrict open justice; the Clarification Summons was dismissed in respect of the contested negative and anticipatory declarations (Paragraphs 2–4) because they were premature, not practically useful, overlapped with English proceedings or already addressed by the English court, but the consent amendment in Paragraph 1 was approved; costs were ordered against Ms Ding for both summonses and the Paragraph 1 amendment.
15 Mar 2021

CCL aka L, CC v. JRC aka C, JR

Citation

[2021] HKFC 54
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1548/2020

Given the documented large-scale transfers and disposals within the relevant period, the husband's opaque and inadequate disclosure, the intermingling of family business/guarantees and the absence of undertakings, the court inferred a real risk of further dissipation and, applying section 17 MPPO and established freezing principles, found the wife established that the husband was about to make dispositions likely to defeat the wife's claim; burden shifted to husband who failed to rebut, therefore injunction granted to preserve the listed-share assets.
9 Jul 2019

ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD v. EXCELLENCE RAISE OVERSEAS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1704
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2017

The court continued the proprietary injunction until trial because on the pleadings and evidence there is a serious issue to be tried: the funds paid to the 9th and 10th defendants are traceable to the plaintiff's money, the shares are traceable proceeds, there was no material non-disclosure or unjustifiable delay that would defeat the injunction, and the balance of convenience favors continuation; a proprietary injunction does not require proof of risk of dissipation.
9 Feb 2018

BARCLAY PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. ANTOINE MEKNI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 436
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2094/2017

Given the existence of final English judgment, clear evidence that the 6th defendant holds assets in Hong Kong, strong prima facie evidence of breaches of Hong Kong freezing injunctions and a real risk of dissipation, together with the absence of any substantial defence and the plaintiff's undertaking as to damages, the balance of convenience required appointment of receivers over the 6th defendant to protect the assets and ensure effectiveness of the freezing orders.
23 Jan 2017

CYYC v. TVKT

Citation

CYYC v. TVKT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14649/2014

The court refused the broad freezing injunction because the applicant did not establish a real risk that any judgment would go unsatisfied by further disposals: existing undertakings, prior orders and proceeds paid into court, coupled with explanatory evidence for withdrawals and market losses, meant the objective threshold for a Mareva‑type injunction over all respondent accounts was not met; the interim injunction was discharged and paragraphs 1 and 2 dismissed; paragraph 3 (charitable donations) was agreed by consent.
18 Jul 2016

GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST CO v. ZZZIK INC LTD

Citation

GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST CO v. ZZZIK INC LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1139/2016

On the uncontested evidence the transfer was made by fraud and mistake; the defendant was unjustly enriched and, in the circumstances where it is unconscionable for the defendant to retain the funds, equity imposes a proprietary constructive trust enabling the plaintiff to trace and recover the funds; given the defendant's absence and inability to effect transfer the court will grant a vesting order under the Trustee Ordinance and direct the bank to pay the plaintiff.
17 Feb 2014

JSC BTA BANK v. MUKHTAR KABULOVICH ABLYAZOV

Citation

JSC BTA BANK v. MUKHTAR KABULOVICH ABLYAZOV
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP341/2014

The court granted the applicant's ex parte application under s21M because the English judgments were, on the material, enforceable in Hong Kong, the Bank established a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation, and receivership was necessary (a freezing order alone would be inadequate); there were good reasons to suppose the Hong Kong companies' shares and assets were beneficially owned or controlled by Ablyazov, and service on his English solicitors was permitted given his custody in France and ongoing English representation.
20 Dec 2013

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. QUNXING PAPER HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. QUNXING PAPER HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2428/2013

The court found the SFC's claim to be compensatory rather than proprietary; the defendants failed to prove that ordinary trading expenses were customarily paid from the known frozen Hong Kong accounts or that they had no other assets available; accordingly the court refused to permit release of frozen assets for ordinary trading expenses but allowed an interim release of HK$500,000 for legal expenses to enable compliance with disclosure and preparation, subject to fuller disclosure and further application.
15 Feb 2013

CMC MAGNETICS CORPORATION v. SHEN LIMING

Citation

CMC MAGNETICS CORPORATION v. SHEN LIMING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2060/2012

Because the defendant failed to file a notice of intention to defend or the required affirmation in opposition and did not comply with the court's directions, the court continued the Mareva injunction, lifted paragraph 1(c) of the earlier order (reactivating paragraphs 5 and 6 of the original order), ordered immediate written disclosure of assets of individual value HK$10,000 or more and an affidavit confirming that disclosure within 14 days, varied the living expense exception to HK$40,000 once every four weeks, and ordered costs to the plaintiff to be taxed.