馮建業 v. CHOW CHUN LIN

HCRE 43/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

RECIPROCAL ENFORCEMENT CASE NO 43 OF 2025

____________

____________

____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  The Respondent has been granted extension of time to file a summons to set aside registration of a Mainland Judgment of the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province under (2022) Yue Min Zhong No. 3050 (“Mainland Judgment”) pursuant to the order of Master Hui granted on 8 August 2025. This is the hearing of his summons filed on 5 November 2025 (“the Summons”). The Respondent used to be represented by a firm of solicitors but, since 3 February 2026, he has been acting in person.

2.  The Respondent did not appear today. The Summons is not supported by an affirmation despite extension of time for the Respondent to file an affirmation on an unless order basis. Accordingly, the Summons is dismissed.

3.  The Respondent got extension of time to file the Summons on 2 grounds, which are not pursued.

4.  The Respondent got 2 extensions from Master Hui for filing an affirmation in support, the 2nd extension being on unless order basis. He still failed to do so. He failed to consent to the Applicant’s request for dismissal of this hopeless Summons.

5.  The Applicant requested to bring forward the substantive hearing. However, the Respondent, through his then solicitors, opposed the request, stating that he has marked counsel’s diary for the hearing and the matter may not be disposed of in a 30 minute hearing. However, just days after the Court decided to bring up the hearing, the Respondent filed a notice to act in person but still used the address of his former firm of solicitors as his correspondence address. The whole saga showed that the Respondent was merely playing delaying tactics to prevent curtailment of his hopeless Summons.

6.  It transpired that the Respondent and his wife Madam Xing made use of the delay to dispose of the Respondent’s assets with a “flash sale” of his interest in a property at Constellation Cove. It was a most dubious transaction as the SPA and assignment of that property were executed on the same day, 19 December 2025, in favour of a Xing Xuan, a person apparently related to the Respondent and his wife, at least in business relationship. The Applicant thus applied for and obtained a Mareva injunction since 3 February 2026.

7.  For the reasons given in paragraphs 3-6 above, I find the Summons to be an abuse of court process to buy time for the Respondent to dissipate his property in Hong Kong to frustrate the Applicant’s enforcement of the Mainland Judgment. To mark the Court’s disapproval of the Respondent’s conduct, I impose an order for indemnity costs (including all costs reserved) against the Respondent, summarily assessed at $151,130.