TRANSUNION LTD v. HONGKONG TAIJIN INDUSTRY LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 1353/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1353 OF 2019

______________

______________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 25 July 2019, P obtained on an ex parte basis a Proprietary/Mareva injunction against D1, together with a banker’s book order against HSBC in respect of a specific account D1 maintained with it (“D1’s HSBC A/C”). The basis of P’s claim, as set out in the affirmation of Lawrence Tsong dated 24 July 2019, was that P was the victim of an email/impersonation fraud. Fraudsters of unknown identity impersonated the Group President and Chief Executive Officer of P and managed to deceive P into remitting funds in the total amount of US$17.8m into D1’s HSBC A/C. That Injunction has been continued.

2.  Armed with the information obtained from the banker’s book order, P obtained on 13 September 2019 from Lisa Wong J on an ex parte basis a 2^nd Injunction against D2 to D39 as second‑tier recipients of the funds (Proprietary/Mareva against all except D8 and D21, and Mareva only against D8 and D21).  Discovery in aid has also been ordered.  Another set of banker’s book orders has further been obtained.

3.  Today, P seeks continuation of the 2^nd Injunction against D2 to D6, D10 to D13, D15 to D20, D22 to D24, D27 to D28, and D30 to D38 (the “1^st Batch of Ds”).  The balance of the remaining Ds is to be dealt with on a later return date (18 October 2019) due to issues of service.

4.  I have read the 2^nd affidavit of Liu Kai Wan Gabrielle.  Despite the mistake on the face of the Summons (ie it was wrongly addressed to all Ds as opposed to just the 1^st Batch of Ds), I am satisfied that the Amended Writ, the 2^nd Injunction and all related documents have validly been served upon the 1^st Batch of Ds.

5.  D11 “sort of” appears this morning.  I said sort of as a Mr Gong who claims to be a director of D11 appears.  I explain to him the background, and the need for him to obtain leave from a Master before he can appear for D11.

6.  D36 is represented by Mr Wong, a solicitor.  Mr Wong does not object to the continuation of the 2^nd Injunction.  He requests 7 days from the date hereof to effect the discovery in aid.  Ms Yuen, counsel for P, agrees to that.  Any variation in relation to legal expenses which Mr Wong indicates that he intends to make can be made first of all over correspondence between the parties.

7.  None of the other Ds amongst the 1^st Batch of Ds appears.

8.  One complication concerns D33.  When the 2^nd Injunction was sought against it, the application was proceeded with on the basis that the relevant transfer to D33 was made to an account maintained by it in HK.  It was subsequently discovered that it was not, and that the transfer was in fact made to the Shanghai branch of the Bank of Communications.  P properly notified Lisa Wong J before the 2^nd Injunction was sealed.  I have considered the implications of this revelation.  Given the proprietary nature of P’s claim, and on the facts of this case, I am satisfied that the validity of the 2^nd Injunction remains intact.

9.  I have considered the evidence.  I am satisfied that P has demonstrated merits to the sufficient threshold to support the 2^nd Injunction. Risk of dissipation necessary for the Mareva part of the 2^nd Injunction can clearly be inferred.  Balance of convenience is in favour of continuation of the 2^nd Injunction.  Save the case of D36 in respect of which the time for compliance of the discovery in aid is extended to 7 days from the date here, I order that the 2^nd Injunction be continued against the 1^st Batch of Ds until further order, in terms of the Summons.