ANELLO ASSET MANAGEMENT LLP v. GENERAL TRADING CREDIT CARBON

HCA 208/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 208 OF 2013

____________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  This is the return date of a Mareva injunction and preservation order granted ex parte on 31 January 2013 by this court. At this hearing the plaintiff seeks, inter alia, a continuation of the Mareva injunction and preservation order, a renewed order for the disclosure of assets, and an order against DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited for disclosure of documents.

2.  On the evidence before me the plaintiff appears to have been the victim of wrongful commercial conduct, if not an outright fraud, that has deprived the plaintiff of a massive amount of money, to the tune of millions of Euros.

3.  The undertakings on the basis of which the ex parte order was made required the plaintiff to serve the Writ and inter partes summons on the defendant “as soon as practicable” and to serve a notice of arbitration on the defendant within 48 hours of that Order.  Because of the fact that the plaintiff has itself been put into administration and the need for translation of certain of the documents into Greek, there has been a delay in the service of the documents but I have been assured by counsel, on the basis of the evidence, that the documents have been served on the defendant at the latest by 6 February.

4.  The defendant has not appeared before me today. Indeed it has not made any response, either to the plaintiff or to this Court, to the steps that the plaintiff has so far taken or to the Order made by the Court on the previous occasion.

5.  In all the circumstances I am satisfied that the injunction and preservation order should be continued on the terms granted and that the disclosure order should be renewed.

6.  The plaintiff also seeks disclosure orders against the bank, into which the plaintiff first paid the money which the defendant has failed to return and which is now the subject matter of the arbitration. The application is based on section 21 of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8).

7.  The bank has been notified of the intended application on 6 February but has not appeared.  It is not uncommon for banks to take a neutral stance on an application of this kind and to agree to abide by any order the Court may be persuaded to make.  In any event I have required a proviso to be inserted into the order so that the bank is entitled to apply to the Court with 48 hours’ notice to the plaintiff to have the order against it varied or discharged.

8.  In the circumstances, I shall grant the order sought in terms already discussed with counsel.