CMC MAGNETICS CORPORATION v. SHEN LIMING

HCA 2060/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2060 OF 2012

____________

____________

D E C I S I O N

____________

1. An ex parte Mareva Injunction was granted by To J on 5 November last year. It was varied by Poon J on 9 November, the returnable day of the inter partes summons to continue the injunction. Poon J on that occasion also gave direction that the defendant should file and serve his affirmation in opposition within two months therefrom. The hearing of the plaintiff’s inter partes summons to continue the ex parte injunction was adjourned to today.

2. The amended writ of summons, the order of To J, the order of Poon J and all supporting affidavits have been served on the defendant.

3. The defendant has not filed any notice of intention to defend the action despite having consulted two lawyers, nor has he filed any affirmation in opposition.  He has only sent to the court by post a Chinese document purportedly called a defence and counterclaim.  That was not done according to the rules of the court and I cannot take that as his pleading or affidavit in opposition to the plaintiff’s claim or the continuation of the injunction.

4. The plaintiff has on 15 January this year obtained an interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed for want of any notice of intention to defend.  The plaintiff is seeking to have the injunction continued until the conclusion of this action or further order of the court. 

5. The defendant opposes the application this morning.  He said the claim should be against his company and not him.  The plaintiff’s case is that he had ordered goods from the plaintiff in the name of his company when the company had already been struck off.  In any case, I cannot accept his verbal utterance this morning in substitution of his affidavit which he should have filed within two months from 9 November last year.

6. I therefore continue the injunction order granted by To J and continued by Poon J until the conclusion of this action or further order of this court.  I further lift paragraph 1(c) of the order of Poon J.  That means I am activating paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order of To J again.

7. Now, this is very important to the defendant. That means the defendant has to inform the plaintiff’s solicitors in writing at once of all his assets of individual value of HK$10,000 or more in Hong Kong, and the assets are those that are owned by him alone or together with others, and he has also to provide the value.  He also has to state the location and the nature of such asset.  After providing all this information in writing to the plaintiff’s solicitors, he has to confirm this information in writing by an affidavit to be served on the plaintiff’s solicitors within 14 days from today.

8. I now come to the living expenses of the defendant.  I vary paragraph 1 of the exception to the order from HK$10,000 per week to HK$40,000 once every four weeks commencing today.

9. And finally on the costs of today, I order the costs be to the plaintiff, to be taxed.