THE EXPORT IMPORT BANK OF CHINA v. LIU QINGPING

HCMP 1684/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1684 OF 2015

___________________

__________________

________________

DECISION
________________

1.  This is my decision on the plaintiff’s application to vary the ex parte injunction granted by Madam Justice Au-Yeung on 17 July 2015 (“Order”) so that the shares in the Listco (adopting the nomenclature used by the learned Judge in the Decision dated 17 July 2015 (“Decision”)) held by Fu Sun (“Shares”) would be frozen by the Order.

2.  Quite rightly, Mr Wong has informed this court that this application must be treated as being made ex parte in light of the fact that the variation summons has not yet been successfully served on the defendant.

3.  First and foremost, it must be recognised that Au-Yeung J had dealt with the very point in question but declined to freeze the Shares (see para 31 of the Decision).

4.  I accept that there is jurisdiction to revisit that issue if there is further evidence before the court which cast a different light on the matter.  However, I am unable to see that the 3^rd affidavit of Michael Kan has advanced any new material which can change the picture that was before Au-Yeung J.

5.  Secondly, it has been said by Mr Wong that the Shares are covered in the Order by reason of the fact that they are the assets of the defendant.  If this is so, I see no reason why the court should grant the relief in question.  It must be right that the court should not revisit an order previously made without good reason.

6.  Thirdly, it is accepted by the plaintiff that it may join Fu Sun as a party in these proceedings.  Such a step may allow the plaintiff to argue on an inter parte application that the Shares should be frozen.

7.  For these reasons, I decline the variation application.