HASSAN IBRAHIM KARONBOCH v. MR CAO YU LIN & CHINESE FORTUNE INT'L GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

HCA 1874/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1874 OF 2013

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  This is the 4th application for a Mareva injunction. All the 3 previous applications were made ex parte and this time the application is made inter parte. Despite that the plaintiff has not filed an affirmation of service to prove the service of the summons on the defendants, I would still proceed to deal with the summons today.

2.  The plaintiff claims that the 3 defendants had cheated him in respect of a sale of goods transaction in 2008, and he therefore seeks a Mareva injunction against the assets of 2 of the defendants:  Mr Cao Yu Lin and Chinese Fortune International Group Limited.

3.  I dismiss the plaintiff’s application again for the following reasons.

4.  Firstly, the 3 previous ex parte applications had been dismissed by Au Yeung J on 4 October 2013, by Li J on 16 October 2013 and by myself on 15 November 2013 based on various reasons.  Some of the reasons given by the court in dismissing the applications include:  (i) the plaintiff has failed to establish a good arguable case; and (ii) it is uncertain about the amount of the assets to be frozen.  As there is no change of circumstances relating to these issues, the court should not entertain a fresh application by the plaintiff.

5.  Secondly, the plaintiff has not submitted a draft order conforming with the Practice Direction for approval by the court. I am not satisfied that the plaintiff is able to enforce the Mareva injunction in accordance with the proper procedures, and so I would not grant such an order in favour of the plaintiff.

6.  Thirdly, the plaintiff cannot provide any security to fortify the undertaking as to damages.  The plaintiff tells me that he can obtain HK$300,000 in 10 days’ time.  Without such payment made into court, I would not even consider making a Mareva injunction.

7.  Fourthly, the plaintiff has failed to prove that Mr Cao has any asset within the jurisdiction.

8.  Fifthly and perhaps more importantly, the plaintiff was allegedly cheated in 2008, and the plaintiff has waited for 5 years before coming to the court to ask for a Mareva injunction.  No explanation has been given in the affidavit to explain the delay.  As delay is a material consideration for the court in determining whether to grant a Mareva injunction and the plaintiff has failed to justify the delay in making the Mareva injunction application, I refuse the plaintiff’s application for such injunction.

9.  The plaintiff’s summons is therefore dismissed.