A CO. v. B CO.

HCCT 99/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4986

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO 99 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  The Plaintiff obtained a costs award (“Costs Award”) against the Defendant in an arbitration in Hong Kong in December 2024.

2.  Leave to enforce the Costs Award was granted by Mimmie Chan J in July 2025.

3.  The Defendant’s application to set aside the Costs Award was dismissed by DHCJ Jonathan Wong in September 2025 for want of prosecution.

4.  Separately, in July 2025, the Plaintiff obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction against the Defendant up to the value of the Costs Award (“Injunction Order”).

5.  The Injunction Order covered, inter alia, the Defendant’s 500,000 shares in a company (“Company”). The Plaintiff holds the other 500,000 shares.

6.  The Injunction Order also contained an asset disclosure order, requiring the Defendant to inform the Plaintiff in writing at once of all its assets of an individual value of $10,000 or more, and verified by affidavit within 7 days upon service.

7.  In August 2025, the Plaintiff obtained garnishee orders nisi against 3 banks at which the Defendant held bank accounts. It also obtained a charging order nisi against the Defendant’s shares in the Company.

8.  Of the 3 garnishee banks, only Hang Seng Bank confirmed that the Defendant’s bank account has a credit balance of HK$304.39. It takes a neutral stance on the garnishee application and is excused from attendance.

9.  The Plaintiff now seeks to make absolute: (a) the garnishee order nisi against Hang Seng Bank, and (b) the charging order nisi against the Defendant’s shares in the Company. It also applies to vary the Injunction Order to allow Hang Seng Bank to release the garnisheed sum to the Plaintiff, and to reduce the enjoined sum under the Injunction Order by the same amount. It further applies to extend time for the Defendant to comply with the asset disclosure order in the Injunction Order to 7 days after service of the Order to be made by this Court today, to avoid any dispute about the deadline for compliance having already elapsed when the Plaintiff again attempts service of the Injunction Order on the Defendant, this time personally on its directors.

10.  The Plaintiff does not intend to pursue the garnishee orders against the other two banks since the Defendant’s bank account with them has no credit balance. It seeks costs of those two garnishee applications against the Defendant.

11.  The above applications are now before me. The Plaintiff is represented by Ms Natalie So of counsel. The Defendant is absent. I am satisfied that the Court papers are duly served on the Defendant at its registered address in the latest Annual Return filed in 2025. I shall proceed in the Defendant’s absence.

12.  I am assisted by Ms So’s skeleton filed ahead of the hearing, which I have read and considered. The Plaintiff is indisputably a creditor of the Defendant under the Costs Award. Whilst the litigation search suggests that the Defendant is a party in a number of Court actions, those cases date back for some time, and realistically they are unlikely to be live cases which may result in competing creditors of the Defendant. There is no evidence that the Defendant has other creditors. Despite the meagre amount held in the Defendant’s bank account with Hang Seng Bank, the Plaintiff is entitled to exhaust all its options. A charging order absolute over the Defendant’s shares in the Company will also enable the Plaintiff to assert full control over the Company to either effect an order for sale of the shares or appropriate the same in partial satisfaction of the amount owed by the Defendant under the Costs Award. The variations to the Injunction Order are necessary to facilitate the enforcement of the garnishee order absolute and also to pave way for potential contempt proceedings against the Defendant.

13.  For these reasons, I make an order in terms of the Draft Order annexed to Ms So’s skeleton. The Plaintiff’s costs of the injunction application (including costs of the variation) and the garnishee proceedings, including all costs reserved, are summarily assessed at HK$948,780, payable by the Defendant forthwith.