WONG KING LUN v. HONG KIAO GO AND ANOTHER

DCCJ67/2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 67 OF 2005

D E C I S I O N

1.  This is the return date for the hearing for the continuation of an ex-parte Mareva Injunction Order made by Deputy District Judge J Ko on 11 August 2005.  Order is at page 86 of the bundle of court documents.

2.  The plaintiff’s counsel has conceded that paragraph 1(1)(b)(i) of the injunction order has to be discharged upon evidence presented by the 1st defendant; evidence presented by the 1st defendant that the sale of her property referred to therein came about as a result of an Order 88 proceedings issued by the mortgagee Bank of China of the said property, and that the total amount due secured on the property exceeds the sale price of the property pursuant to the sale and purchase agreement dated 12 August 2005 of the property referred to in Exhibit HKG-10 of the 1st defendant’s second affirmation.

3.  The other paragraphs of the Injunction Order requires the 1st defendant not to remove from Hong Kong any of her assets which are within Hong Kong whether in her own name or not and whether solely or jointed owned up to the value of HK$657,000.00; and/or not to dispose of or deal with or diminish the value of any of her assets which are in Hong Kong whether in her own name or not and whether solely or jointed owned up to the value of HK$657,000.

4.  The plaintiff has no evidence that the 1st defendant has any assets apart from the property referred to in the Order in paragraph 1(1)(b)(i) of the Order. 

5.  Paragraph 12.044 of the authority, the textbook Commercial Injunctions by Stephen Gee QC state that:

“the position is different when there is no real evidence of the defendant having assets.  In such a case, even after judgment, there should not be an injunction.  This is because the injunction will serve no purpose and it is likely to cause substantial hardship to the defendant.”

6.  This paragraph exactly covers the situation we now find as there is no evidence of the defendant having assets apart from the real property referred to. 

7.  The injunction will serve no purpose and it is likely to cause great hardship to the defendant.  Hence, the injunction has to be discharged in its entirety.