QATAR QUALITY PRODUCTS W.L.L. v. TAK LE FAMILY CO., LTD

HCA 670/2018

[2018] HKCFI 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 670 OF 2018

______________

______________

______________

DECISION

______________

1.  This is the plaintiff’s application by way of an inter partes summons of 23 March 2018 for a Mareva injunction against the defendant. 

2.  The plaintiff is a company incorporated in the State of Qatar and engages in consumer goods trading business.  The defendant is a company incorporated in Hong Kong on 23 June 2017.  Its sole director is a Mr Xie Hai Feng with a Mainland address. 

3.  I have read the affirmation of Nabil Youssef Chamas dated 20 March 2018.  I have also read the submissions of Mr Chen who appeared for the plaintiff.  I have read the authorities which Mr Chen referred me to (which included Guaranty Bank and Trust Co v Zzzik Inc Limited (unreported, HCA 1139/2016, 18 July 2016) and Ferrari North America, Inc v Changhon International Energy Co Limited (unreported, HCA 852/2017, 29 June 2017)).  The evidence discloses a case of email / identity fraud.  Fraudsters impersonated a party which the plaintiff was having business dealings with and sent emails to the plaintiff.  False remittance particulars were given.  As a result of the fraud, import loans in the total amount of US$742,696.87 which the plaintiff had applied for from HSBC Middle East were remitted between 4 and 9 January 2018 to a bank account held in the name of the defendant with the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Asia) Limited.  The Hong Kong Police have been notified.  Measures have been undertaken by the police to restrict disposal of funds in the defendant’s relevant accounts.  Nothing has been heard from the defendant.  The plaintiff has also been informed by the police that there are indeed funds in those accounts. 

4.  I have read the affirmation of service of Tai Man Kit filed on 28 March 2018.  I am satisfied that the summons, the affirmations in support and all necessary court documents have been validly served upon the defendant.  No representative from the defendant appears.  Bearing in mind the nature of the claim against the defendant, and having considered Order 32, rule 5, I deem it expedient to proceed with the application in the absence of the defendant.

5.  I am satisfied that a good arguable case has been shown.  Risk of dissipation can clearly be inferred.  The balance of convenience is overwhelmingly in favour of the injunction being granted. 

6.  I order that an injunction in terms of the draft order attached to the summons as amended be granted.  Costs of the application be in the cause.