HANGZHOU SHENGZHE TRADE CO. LTD V HE HC AK CIV-2012-404-3860

HANGZHOU SHENGZHE TRADE CO. LTD V HE HC AK CIV-2012-404-3860

Although applicants established a good arguable case against the first defendant and identified assets in New Zealand, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation as required for a freezing order; bare assertions and historical conduct in China were insufficient to meet the onus, therefore the freezing order application was declined.

Citation
openlaw-007e3e41_e9ad_455a_a46e_2c88c5b447b0.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: HANGZHOU SHENGZHE TRADE CO. LTD; Second Plaintiff: HANGZHOU FULUOSI THERMAL INSULATION MATERIALS CO. LTD; Third Plaintiff: HANGZHOU JIAHUA INVESTMENT CO. LTD; Fourth Plaintiff: HANGZHOU KANLI CAR SALES AND SERVICES CO. LTD; First Defendant: WEIDONG HE; Second Defendant: FURONG PAN; Third Defendant: XIAOMEI LIU; Fourth Defendant: MARYLAND COMPANY LIMITED; Fifth Defendant: MARYLAND BASSETT COMPANY LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Freezing Order Application (part 32 High Court Rules) / Ex Parte Interim Relief Application (hearing on 11 July 2012; Reserved Judgment 12 July 2012)
Outcome
Application for freezing orders declined.
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Risk of Dissipation, Jurisdictional Assets, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment, Disclosure Obligations, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Injunctions and Freezing Orders International Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Fraud Allegations Freezing Order Risk of Dissipation Jurisdictional Assets Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HANGZHOU SHENGZHE TRADE CO. LTD

First Plaintiff

HANGZHOU FULUOSI THERMAL INSULATION MATERIALS CO. LTD

Second Plaintiff

HANGZHOU JIAHUA INVESTMENT CO. LTD

Third Plaintiff

HANGZHOU KANLI CAR SALES AND SERVICES CO. LTD

Fourth Plaintiff

WEIDONG HE

First Defendant

FURONG PAN

Second Defendant

XIAOMEI LIU

Third Defendant

MARYLAND COMPANY LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

MARYLAND BASSETT COMPANY LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Order Application (part 32 High Court Rules) / Ex Parte Interim Relief Application (hearing on 11 July 2012; Reserved Judgment 12 July 2012)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have a good arguable case against the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether there are assets within New Zealand to which a freezing order can apply
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets to justify a freezing order

Ratio Decidendi

Although applicants established a good arguable case against the first defendant and identified assets in New Zealand, they failed to prove a real risk of dissipation as required for a freezing order; bare assertions and historical conduct in China were insufficient to meet the onus, therefore the freezing order application was declined.

Court Disposition

Application for freezing orders declined.

Orders

  • Application for freezing orders under Part 32 of the High Court Rules is declined