Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Real risk of dissipation

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2025

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 王一诚

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1257/2024

Leave to appeal and the application for a stay were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the judge correctly applied the Convoy test and found insufficient evidence of a real risk of dissipation given the defendants did not transfer assets out of Hong Kong during the five months between demand and application and the plaintiff's allegations of dishonesty and document contradictions were insufficient to infer a real risk.
30 Sept 2025

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 李克凡

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1258/2024

The plaintiff failed to satisfy the standalone requirement of demonstrating a real risk of dissipation: unexplained delay of months after demand and commencement, account statements showed no substantial realizations or transfers despite opportunities, absence of cogent evidence of dishonesty or fraudulent conduct, and credible evidence supporting the defendants' assertion of a novation/loan swap reduced the inference of dissipation; accordingly the Mareva summonses were dismissed.
28 Aug 2007

LAU WAI BING ALICE v. LAU LEE KIN SUSANNA AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU WAI BING ALICE v. LAU LEE KIN SUSANNA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA529/2007

The Mareva injunction was discharged and the inter partes application dismissed because the plaintiff failed to prove a real risk of dissipation and there was material non-disclosure on the ex parte application (notably unrealistic rental income calculations, failure to disclose the value of the Tung Chung property as adequate security and failure to disclose registration of a lis pendens), thereby defeating the basis for the freezing order.
11 Aug 1989

GRAND CHINA RESOURCES LTD v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GRAND CHINA RESOURCES LTD v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA839/1989

The injunctions were continued because on the whole of the evidence the applicants demonstrated a good arguable case (in particular Mr Stone's counterclaim) and there remained a real risk that any judgment would be rendered unsatisfied by dissipation or export of assets; the non-disclosures in ex parte affidavits did not justify discharge because the omitted material would not have undermined the applicants' entitlement to relief.

Hong Kong Case Law

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 王一诚

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. 李克凡

LAU WAI BING ALICE v. LAU LEE KIN SUSANNA AND OTHERS

GRAND CHINA RESOURCES LTD v. MANDARIN RESOURCES CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER