XCHRX MICHAEL ELLIS v. TERESA ANNE HOLLADAY

HCA8811/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.8811 OF 2000

-----------------------

-------------------------

J U D G M E N T

-------------------------

1. I have before me a summons for injunction preventing and restraining the defendant/judgment debtor from dissipating her assets. The Consent Order has been placed before me where everything else had been agreed except in relation to item (2) of the Proviso, that is to say, how much in the Mareva Order should be exempted to enable the defendant debtor from being able to spend certain sums of money.

2. There are three categories under Proviso (2) : the first category is $50,000 of legal advice, there is no dispute on this, so I would allow this. There is a monthly sum of $100,000 towards her and her son's ordinary and proper living expenses. Having regard to the schedule put before me, I think it is reasonable and I allow this. There is also a third sum of $100,000 per month towards her ordinary and proper business expenses. I regard this as not a permissible expense which should be exempted from the Mareva, which is a Mareva-in-aid of execution of judgment under which there is already obligation of the judgment debtor, the defendant, to pay all monies owned by her to the creditor. They plaintiff creditor is trying to locate her assets, and that is why there are other provisions in the Consent Order to enable the plaintiff to do so.

3. In these circumstances, I think Proviso (2) in the draft Consent Order should have deleted from it the further sum of $100,000 per month towards her ordinary and proper business expenses. Save for that, I make an order in terms of that Consent Order.