SIU KAI MING v. LAU SAI HING

HCA 2131/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2131 OF 2008

____________

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. I am not satisfied that there is proper evidence of dissipation of assets, which is required to ground a mareva injunction.

2. There are 2 elements identified in support of this part of the plaintiff’s case.  Firstly, the sale of the defendant’s properties.  I cannot accept that such an action is, per se, an indication of dissipation of assets.  The defendant is quite entitled to dispose of his properties as and when he desires.  It must be accepted that the property market is quite favourable to vendors and therefore there may well be genuine commercial reason for the sale.

3. Secondly, it is suggested that the delivery of the Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement for registration took place 2 days after a Statutory Demand was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, and that it gives rise to an inference of dissipation of assets.  This is a misleading point.  It appears that the Provisional Agreement was signed on 18 March 2015, well before the issuance of the Statutory Demand dated 13 April 2015.

4. Further, I am troubled by the fact that there is no evidence that the plaintiff has sought to have the costs, which is the subject matter of the mareva injunction, taxed or asked the defendant to agree to the same so that he would be in a position to demand payment.  Such failure to do what is reasonable militates against granting the ex parte relief.

5. For these reasons, this application is declined.