Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HCMP 1306/2017
B
[2018] HKCFI 1795 B
E
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1306 OF 2017 E
______________
F F
IN THE MATTER of Order 32, rule 10
G
of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A G
______________
H BETWEEN H
and
K K
and
M M
R R
DECISION
S S
T T
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
1. On 13 July 2018, the applicant obtained from Wong J on an
B ex parte basis a Mareva injunction against the plaintiff. This is the return B
date hearing.
C C
a charging order on his flat and an order for vacant possession and sale, all
G G
in default of acknowledgement of service by the defendant. The applicant,
H the defendant’s wife, approached the court contending that the defendant was H
mentally incapacitated and sought orders that she be appointed his guardian
I I
ad litem and that the judgment and consequential orders be set aside. Her
J application was objected to by the plaintiff and rejected by Deputy District J
Judge R Yu (as he then was) before District Court. Her appeal to the
K K
Court of Appeal was dismissed. She appealed to the Court of Final Appeal.
L On 24 June 2015, her appeal was allowed. She was also awarded costs. L
According to the relevant Bill of Costs prepared prior to taxation, the total
M M
amount of costs which she was entitled to claim from the plaintiff was
N HK$3,359,928. N
P
had been mostly unresponsive in the process. There had also been certain P
developments which caused the applicant concern. They included the
Q Q
following: (1) according to the List of Dismissed or Withdrawn Applications
R
for Money Lenders (as at 30 April 2017), the plaintiff’s application for money R
lender licence was dismissed; (2) some unusual changes of shareholding and
S S
directorship of the plaintiff; and (3) that the plaintiff could not be found at
T
its registered address when a clerk of the applicant’s legal advisers attended T
the same on 2 June 2017.
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
st
4. On 6 June 2017, and supported by the applicant’s 1 affirmation
B of the same date, the Applicant obtained from Lisa Wong J on an ex parte B
I I
5. The plaintiff failed to give any disclosure in aid as ordered.
J J
The plaintiff however did not appear during the subsequent hearings.
O O
V V
- 4 -
A A
with the amount of the costs allowed, adjusted to HK$2,967,105.60. I note
B that on 7 June 2018, the applicant applied for Legal Aid. That accounts B
for the slight delay in the making of the application before Wong J.
C C
the authorities cited to me, which include Menno Leendert Vos v Global
E E
Fair Industrial Ltd & others HCA 4200/1995 (unreported, 25 March 2010).
F I have heard counsel for the applicant. I note that this is in effect an F
the part of the plaintiff to make disclosure in aid as ordered by the 23/6/17
I I
Mareva Injunction, and in the absence of any evidence in opposition from
J the plaintiff, a serious risk of dissipation can in my view be inferred. The J
the 13-7-18 Mareva Injunction at this stage, she should avail herself of the
O O
usual execution mechanism in due course. I will proceed to hear Mr Ma
P on the duration. P
C C
D D
E E
F F
G G
H H
I I
J J
K K
L L
M M
N N
O O
P P
Q Q
R R
S S
T T
U U
V V