TOYOTA BOSHOKU EUROPE N.V. v. KINGSVILLE (HK) ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 452/2022

[2026] HKCFI 3393

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 452 OF 2022

______________

______________

______________

JUDGMENT

______________

Introduction and Background

1.  There is before me a Summons dated 4 December 2025 (“the Summons”) by the Plaintiff (“P”) for:

(1)     Judgment in default of giving notice of intention to defend under O.13, r.1 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap. 4A (“RHC”) against the 3^rd Defendant (“D3”);

(2)     Further or alternatively, the defence of D3 (“the Defence”) be struck out under O.18, r.19(1)(c)& (d) of RHC;

(3)     Alternative to (1), judgment in default of defence under O.19, r.2 and/or r.7 of RHC;

(4)     Alternatively, an order that D3 shall confirm with the Court and P’s solicitors in writing within 28 days from service of the order that D3 shall defend or contest P’s claims failing which the Defence be struck out and P be at liberty to enter judgment against D3.

2.  As indicated in P’s Written Submissions dated 20 February 2026, P also seeks a variation and continuation “post-judgment” of the Mareva injunction previously granted against D3. 

3.  On 17 September 2025, I refused a previous application by P made by Summons dated 18 August 2025 to enter judgment in default of defence pursuant to O.19, r.7 of RHC against inter alios D3.  Whilst D3 had filed an acknowledgment of service on 6 May 2022 but subsequently on 18 November 2024 filed an Amended Acknowledgment of Service (“Amended A/S”) stating that it does not intend to defend these proceedings, the Defence filed on 26 August 2022 has not been withdrawn or struck out.  I was therefore not satisfied that D3 can be said to be in “default” of filing any defence.  See my Judgment dated 17 September 2025 ([2025] HKCFI 5959) which sets out my reasons (paragraphs 23-27) and the background of this action together with its related action (HCA 2091/2019) whereby P sought to recover funds transferred to the defendants as a result of a “CEO impersonation fraud” perpetrated on it (paragraphs 1-3) which shall not be repeated herein.  Of the 23 defendants in this action and the 48 defendants in HCA 2091/2019, I am informed that the proceedings against all other defendants have been disposed of whether by way of default judgment, settlement or discontinuance.

4.  Mr Yau, counsel, appears for P.

5.  Notwithstanding service of the Summons on D3 by ordinary post at its registered office, D3 has not appeared.  I am of the view given D3 has been duly served the Summons and its stance to not contest these proceedings, it is expedient to proceed with the hearing of the Summons under O.32, r.5 of RHC notwithstanding its absence.

Discussion and Disposition

6.  As submitted by Mr Yau, P’s primary case is to seek default judgment under O.13, r.1 of RHC.

7.  I am satisfied in the present case that: (1) the Writ and Amended Writ have been duly served on D3; and (2) by the Amended A/S which contained a statement that D3 does not intend to contest these proceedings this action, D3 has failed to give notice of intention to defend.  See O.1, r.4(1) of RHC which defines “notice of intention to defend” to mean an acknowledgment of service containing a statement to the effect that the person by whom or on whose behalf it is signed intends to contest the proceedings to which the acknowledgment relates.

8.  I am also satisfied based on the authorities cited to me (in particular, Kho Luis Fabregas v Wu You [2026] HKCFI 125 per DHCJ Kent Yee, see §§14-47 which comprehensively analysed the previous Hong Kong and UK authorities which I am in agreement with and will adopt) that P’s claim against D3 for unjust enrichment is a claim for liquidated demand and therefore falls within O.13, r.1 of RHC.  As set out in the Indorsement of Claim of the Amended Writ, P claims against D3 the sum as set out in Schedule 2 being USD482,145.58.  This is an exact sum requiring no further assessment.  Mr Yau has confirmed that the other relief seeking declarations, an account and tracing inquiry, delivery up and damages in the Indorsement of Claim is abandoned.

9.  As for the claim for injunction, the court has power under its inherent jurisdiction to give leave to enter judgment for liquidated demand notwithstanding the writ is indorsed with a claim for an injunction and the plaintiff has in fact obtained a Mareva injunction against the defendant.  The court can also order the Mareva injunction could continue in force, after the judgment, in aid of execution: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2026, Vol.1, §13/6/1.

10.  In the present case, P had obtained ex parte a proprietary and Mareva injunction against D3 by Order of B Chu J dated 22 April 2022 which was varied and continued by Order of Cheng J dated 29 April 2022 and further varied by Order of Cheng J on 2 June 2022. 

11.  As for the claim for interest, O.13, r.1(2) of RHC provides that a claim shall not be prevented from being treated for the purpose of r.1 as a claim for liquidated demand by reason only that part of the claim is for interest under s.48 of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 at a rate which is not higher than that payable on judgment debts at the date of the writ.

12.  I am satisfied that P is entitled to enter judgment against D3 under O.13, r.1 of RHC.  It follows that it is not necessary to consider the further and alternative orders sought by P.

13.  Based on the submissions of Mr Yau and for similar reasons as analysed previously by me in my Judgment, I would also continue the Mareva injunction (but not the proprietary injunction which is hereby discharged) of the Order of B Chu J as continued by Cheng J for a further 12 months from the date of today.  For the avoidance of doubt and the need for further application, there should be an added exception that the order as continued by me does not prohibit the banks from paying funds out of any injuncted account to P or its solicitors pursuant to any garnishee order absolute in favour of P.

14.  Costs of the Summons should be paid forthwith by D3 which has been summarily assessed by me at HK$10,000.

15.  I will make an order in terms of the draft Judgment and draft Order as amended by me.