LEADER SCREWS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. HUANG SHUNKUI

HCA 2067/2019

[2022] HKCFI 1319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2067 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  Before me this morning is the plaintiff’s application to extend the duration of the post-judgment mareva injunction which has been in place since judgment was given in January 2021. The plaintiff asks for an extension of 15 months.

2.  The injunction was in fact a continuation of an interlocutory injunction granted before judgment.  The post-judgment mareva injunction was scheduled to expire originally on 9 July 2021.  Before the scheduled expiry, the injunction was extended to 18 April 2022 which is next Monday.  There is therefore urgency in dealing with the plaintiff’s application today.

3.  For the procedural history of the case, see the series of decisions made by Madam Justice Au-Yeung.  The latest decision can be found at [2021] HKCFI 3664.

4.  The plaintiff has filed an affirmation to support the application.  At today’s hearing, the defendant appears in person.  She has made extensive submissions at the hearing, opposing the application.  She has also made various factual allegations in the course of her submissions.  For today’s purposes, in view of the need to rule on the decision immediately, I will take into account those factual allegations even though they are not deposed to in an affirmation.

5.  It is well-established that the court has the power to extend the duration of a post-judgment mareva injunction.  However, the power is not to be lightly exercised.  Absent any material change in circumstances, the primary concern of the court is whether the judgment creditor has been diligent in taking out execution processes necessary in the meantime and whether it is in the interest of justice to extend the injunction. 

6.  I am satisfied that the injunction should be extended and I consider that the period of 15 months is suitable in the circumstances. 

7.  I am satisfied that the plaintiff has been active in seeking enforcement of the judgment and has been taking various steps to do so.  As things stand now, there are various steps to be taken forward. This includes the proceedings in which the plaintiff applies for an order for sale against one of the defendant’s properties.  The application was commenced in December 2021.  By her acknowledgement of service, the defendant has indicated that she would oppose the application.

8.  There is also an adjourned examination hearing in June this year.  On the materials before me, it can be reasonably expected that there may be a further adjournment.  In any event, it is also reasonably anticipated that further steps will be taken by the plaintiff to enforce the judgment following the conclusion of the examination.

9.  It is plain on the evidence that the plaintiff has been taking diligent steps to enforce the judgment ever since it has been entered against the defendant.  On the other hand, there is also evidence to the effect that the defendant has not been fully co-operating. 

10.  As recently as in November 2021, master made an order to compel the defendant to make certain disclosure of documents on or before 31 December 2021.  It was further ordered that the defendant should make an affirmation confirming compliance with the order or explaining any non-compliance within 14 days after that.

11.  In today’s hearing, the defendant admits that no such affirmation has been made in compliance with that order. 

12.  To conclude, the plaintiff has been diligently enforcing the judgment whereas there is evidence showing that the defendant has not been fully co-operative.  In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the mareva injunction should be extended for a further 15 months to enable the plaintiff to continue with the execution process.

13.  The defendant informs the court that she is now pursuing an appeal against the judgment and the injunction order.  I have reviewed the materials handed up by her in relation to the intended appeal. The leave to appeal application is pending.  As explained to the defendant today, notwithstanding the intended appeal, the judgment entered in January 2021 against her remains binding.  The plaintiff is entitled to continue to enforce the judgment.  Therefore, the defendant’s reliance on the intended appeal is not a valid ground of opposition.

14.  I make an order in terms of the plaintiff’s summons filed on 8 April 2022.  That would be para 1.  In other words, I would extend the injunction until 18 July 2023.

(Discussion re costs)

15.  Costs should follow the event.  I order that the defendant do pay costs of the summons to the plaintiff, summarily assessed at $60,000, payable on or before 28 April 2022.