RONG WEI V. CHIU SUNG FAI also known as ALLAN CHIU also known as CHIU SUNG FAI ALLAN AND ANOTHER

HCA 1509/2019

[2019] HKCFI 2389

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1509 OF 2019

______________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.  On 28 August 2019 Wilson Chan J on an ex parte basis granted a Proprietary and Mareva Injunction against Ds (the “Injunction”). Today is the return date. P is seeking before me as the Summons Judge an Order that the Injunction be continued until further order.

2.  I have read the Writ of Summons issued by P on 19 August 2019.  I have also read the affidavit of Dorothy Patricia Siron dated 23 August 2019 filed in support of the ex parte application.  In short, P has previously started an action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada again Ds (the “BC Proceedings”).  On 18 August 2017, under HCMP 1785/2017, Deputy Judge William Wong SC, pursuant to s 21M of the High Court Ordinance and in aid of the BC Proceedings, granted a Proprietary and Mareva injunction against Ds.  That injunction has since been continued.  The BC Proceedings have now been concluded. Judgment was on 8 August 2019 made against Ds in the sum of CAD 2,548,335.20 with punitive damages in the amount of CAD 50,000 against each of Ds.  P has since started the present action to enforce that Judgment.

3.  I have read the 2^nd affidavit of Dorothy Patricia Siron dated 12 September 2019 attaching a scanned copy of the affidavit of the process server Amerritpal Mander.  I am satisfied that, amongst other documents, a copy of the sealed Injunction and a copy of the sealed Concurrent Writ herein were served on 4 September 2019 upon Ds at their specified last known address as allowed by Wilson Chan J at §14 of the Injunction.

4.  Ds are absent.

5.  Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that serious issue to be tried has been demonstrated in respect of the Proprietary part of the Injunction.  In respect of the Mareva part of the Injunction, I am satisfied that a good arguable case has been demonstrated, and that there continues to be a risk of dissipation.  Now that judgment in the BC Proceedings has been obtained, the balance of convenience tilts overwhelmingly in favour of the continuation of the Injunction. 

6.  I order that the Injunction be continued as per the Summons.

7.  Costs reserved.