HCMP1080/2024 CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS - LawHero
HCMP1080/2024
高等法院（雜項）Coleman J1/8/2024[2024] HKCFI 2040
合併案件：HCA551/2024HCMP1080/2024
HCMP1080/2024
HCMP 1080/2024
A A
[2024] HKCFI 2040
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C C
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
D MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1080 OF 2024 D
E E
IN THE MATTER OF an application for injunctive
relief under Section 21L of the High Court Ordinance
F F
(Cap. 4)
G G
BETWEEN
H H
CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP Plaintiff
I I
(中國恒大集團) (IN LIQUIDATION)
J and J
K HUI KA YAN (許家印) 1st Defendant K
L XIA HAIJUN (夏海鈞) 2nd Defendant L
M DING YU MEI (丁玉梅) 3rd Defendant M
N ________________ N
O AND O
HCA 551/2024
P P
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
Q HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Q
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
R R
ACTION NO. 551 OF 2024
S S
BETWEEN
T T
CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP Plaintiff
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
(中國恒大集團) (IN LIQUIDATION)
B B
and
C C
st
HUI KA YAN (許家印) 1 Defendant
D D
nd
XIA HAIJUN (夏海鈞) 2 Defendant
E E
rd
PAN DARONG (潘大榮) 3 Defendant
F F
XIN XIN (BVI) LIMITED 4th Defendant
G G
DING YUMEI (丁玉梅) 5th Defendant
H H
YAOHUA LIMITED 6th Defendant
I EVEN HONOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED 7th Defendant I
J ________________ J
K K
(Heard together)
L L
Before: Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Not Open to Public)
M Date of Hearing: 2 August 2024 M
Date of Ruling: 2 August 2024
N N
_____________
O R U L I N G O
_____________
P P
1. The matters being dealt with by me this morning arise in the
Q context of two connected actions, being HCMP 1080/2024 (“HCMP Q
R
Action”) and HCA 551/2024 (“HCA Action”). R
S 2. Today mainly concerns the return date of two inter partes S
summonses issued in the HCMP Action, as regards only the 3 rd defendant
T T
to that action (“Madam Ding”) – though she is also the 5 defendant to
th
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
the HCA Action. The summonses respectively seek the continuation
B B
against Madam Ding of (1) the Chabra Mareva injunction granted by me
C on an ex parte basis on 12 July 2024, and (2) the proprietary and C
worldwide Mareva injunctions granted by me on an ex parte basis on
D D
29 July 2024. The Plaintiff seeks the continuation of both orders until
E the final determination of these proceedings, or further order. E
F F
3. It is relevant to note that orders in similar terms to the
G proprietary and worldwide Mareva injunctions were granted against G
Madam Ding by a Court in London on 30 July 2024 (“London Order”).
H H
I 4. On the materials provided to me, I am satisfied that Madam I
Ding has been served with the documents in the Hong Kong proceedings,
J J
and I think she has also been served with the documents leading to and
K including the London Order. But Madam Ding has yet to engage in the K
Hong Kong proceedings and is not represented.
L L
M 5. Mr Manzoni SC, who appears for the Plaintiff this morning M
as on the previous hearings, has informed me that solicitors in London
N N
who may potentially be instructed by Madam Ding in relation to the
O proceedings in London have contacted the solicitors acting for the O
Plaintiff in London. Amongst other things, those solicitors have
P P
requested a variation of the London Order to permit Madam Ding to
Q spend a greater sum on legal fees than is currently permitted under the Q
terms of that order, and to extend the date for the ancillary asset
R R
disclosure required by the London Order from its current date of within
S four days of service of the London Order on Madam Ding to a new date S
of 9 August 2024.
T T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
6. I have seen correspondence between the sets of London
B B
solicitors, by which it appears that the Plaintiff is content to agree to a
C variation of the London order to permit Madam Ding to spend the sum of C
£150,000 up to 7 August 2024, and for the asset disclosure deadline to be
D D
extended to 4pm on 7 August 2024 – though I do not think that extension
E has yet been agreed, and there may yet be a variation application to be E
heard by the Court in London.
F F
G 7. I do not think I need to be concerned about the relevant G
figure permitted for expenditure on legal fees. But I am concerned
H H
about the potential or actual mismatch between the asset disclosure
I deadlines in the order made by me and the London Order. I think it I
would be unattractive for the Hong Kong order to continue to contain the
J J
deadline to provide essentially the same asset disclosure as is required
K under the London Order, on a date which is earlier than the Plaintiff is K
prepared to accept by way of a variation to the current terms of the
L L
London Order. In essence, I do not think that Madam Ding should be
M left in the position that she risks being held in contempt of court, or M
required to run that risk, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff has indicated
N N
that in practice it would unlikely complain if disclosure is not provided in
O Hong Kong by the deadline which the Plaintiff is content to agree in O
P
London. P
Q 8. In those circumstances, whilst I am prepared – on the Q
materials and in the exercise of my discretion – to continue the Chabra
R R
Mareva injunction and the proprietary and worldwide Mareva injunctions
S S
against Madam Ding until trial or further order, I will do so on the basis
T
that I vary the deadline for the provision of asset disclosure under the T
Mareva injunction order to 7 August 2024.
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
9. I am conscious that this may not be an entirely satisfactory
B B
way of bringing the appropriate deadlines in London and in Hong Kong
C into line, but it seems that matter can be revisited as appropriate C
depending on what occurs in London, and once Madam Ding has the
D D
opportunity properly to instruct solicitors in London and, it may be hoped,
E in Hong Kong. E
F F
10. A further matter which arises this morning is in relation to
G the current confidentiality orders applicable to these proceedings. In the G
underlying winding up proceedings relating to the Plaintiff,
H H
HCCW 2020/2022 (“HCCW Action”), Linda Chan J has made orders on
I 20 March 2024 and 25 July 2024 cloaking the HCA Action and/or claims I
against the defendants to that action with confidentiality/anonymity. As
J J
I understand it, that was in the circumstances that the Plaintiff was
K continuing to make investigation into its claim which it had protected by K
issue of the writ in the HCA Action, and also against a concern as to risk
L L
of dissipation of assets (which risk I have found to exist in my making of
M the various injunction orders). I have also accordingly made M
confidentiality orders in the HCMP Action.
N N
O 11. Obviously, the confidentiality orders have been sought by O
the Plaintiff for the intended potential benefit ultimately of the creditors
P P
of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff has recognised that once the writ in the
Q HCA Action has been served on the defendants, the need or justification Q
for confidentiality no longer exists, and the confidentiality orders can be
R R
discontinued.
S S
12. Ordinarily, I would be minded to accede immediately to
T T
lifting the confidentiality orders as has been requested by the Plaintiff.
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
But Mr Manzoni has properly reminded me that the 2nd defendant in both
B B
the HCMP Action and HCA Action (“Mr Xia”) has previously expressed
C a concern about being identified, even in circumstances where an initial C
was used instead of his name in the heading or listing of proceedings.
D D
The concern was expressed in correspondence sent to me in response to
E my indication that I intended to publish (by uploading to the judiciary E
website) my recent decision made in the context of the worldwide
F F
Mareva injunction application proceedings involving Mr Xia – whose
G application to discharge the injunction against him will be heard by me on G
2 October 2024. I did not think that the concerns expressed warranted
H H
not uploading the decision suitably anonymized, and it was indeed
I published. I
J J
13. However, against that background, I have considered
K whether it would be appropriate now to lift the confidentiality order K
without first hearing from Mr Xia. Having adjourned the hearing briefly
L L
this morning so as to take the time to think about it, I do not think it is
M necessary to hear first from Mr Xia. The matter seems to me to be quite M
clear. Had there been no confidentiality order made in the first place,
N N
Mr Xia would almost certainly have had no proper basis to have
O requested the fact that he is made a defendant to the HCA Action (or the O
P
HCMP Action) to be cloaked by confidentiality or anonymity. P
Ordinarily business of the sort being litigated in these proceedings would
Q Q
be conducted in accordance with the usual principles of transparency and
R
open justice. The HCCW Action is being conducted in the usual way. R
The confidentiality/anonymity orders were sought and obtained by the
S S
Plaintiff for reasons which the Plaintiff properly recognizes no longer
T pertain, following service of the writ in the HCA Action on the T
defendants to that action.
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
14. The orders made in the HCCW Action were plainly intended
B B
to have limited duration, and were made expressly until further order of
C the Court. The Court not being only the Court as constituted by Linda C
Chan J, it is appropriate for me to make the orders I now think to be
D D
appropriate. I will therefore lift the confidentiality as regards the HCA
E Action (by making orders in and/or as regards to the HCA Action and E
HCCW Action) and in the HCMP Action.
F F
G 15. Lastly, on the materials now provided to me, I am satisfied G
that it is appropriate to grant leave to serve a concurrent writ in the HCA
H H
Action out of the jurisdiction on the 3rd defendant to that action (“CFO
I Pan”), at the identified addressed in the People’s Republic of China or I
elsewhere in the People’s Republic of China.
J J
K 16. I make the appropriate orders in accordance with the above K
terms, which can be drawn up for my approval.
L L
M M
N N
(Russell Coleman)
O O
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
P P
Q Mr Charles Manzoni SC, instructed by Karas So LLP, for the plaintiff Q
R The 3rd defendant in HCMP 1080/2024, acting in person, absent R
S S
T T
U U
V V
CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS
HCMP 1080/2024
A A
[2024] HKCFI 2040
B IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE B
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
C C
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
D MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1080 OF 2024 D
E E
IN THE MATTER OF an application for injunctive
relief under Section 21L of the High Court Ordinance
F F
(Cap. 4)
G G
BETWEEN
H H
CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP Plaintiff
I I
(中國恒大集團) (IN LIQUIDATION)
J and J
K HUI KA YAN (許家印) 1st Defendant K
L XIA HAIJUN (夏海鈞) 2nd Defendant L
M DING YU MEI (丁玉梅) 3rd Defendant M
N ________________ N
O AND O
HCA 551/2024
P P
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
Q HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION Q
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
R R
ACTION NO. 551 OF 2024
S S
BETWEEN
T T
CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP Plaintiff
U U
V V
- 2 -
A A
(中國恒大集團) (IN LIQUIDATION)
B B
and
C C
st
HUI KA YAN (許家印) 1 Defendant
D D
nd
XIA HAIJUN (夏海鈞) 2 Defendant
E E
rd
PAN DARONG (潘大榮) 3 Defendant
F F
XIN XIN (BVI) LIMITED 4th Defendant
G G
DING YUMEI (丁玉梅) 5th Defendant
H H
YAOHUA LIMITED 6th Defendant
I EVEN HONOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED 7th Defendant I
J ________________ J
K K
(Heard together)
L L
Before: Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Not Open to Public)
M Date of Hearing: 2 August 2024 M
Date of Ruling: 2 August 2024
N N
_____________
O R U L I N G O
_____________
P P
1. The matters being dealt with by me this morning arise in the
Q context of two connected actions, being HCMP 1080/2024 (“HCMP Q
R
Action”) and HCA 551/2024 (“HCA Action”). R
S 2. Today mainly concerns the return date of two inter partes S
summonses issued in the HCMP Action, as regards only the 3 rd defendant
T T
to that action (“Madam Ding”) – though she is also the 5 defendant to
th
U U
V V
- 3 -
A A
the HCA Action. The summonses respectively seek the continuation
B B
against Madam Ding of (1) the Chabra Mareva injunction granted by me
C on an ex parte basis on 12 July 2024, and (2) the proprietary and C
worldwide Mareva injunctions granted by me on an ex parte basis on
D D
29 July 2024. The Plaintiff seeks the continuation of both orders until
E the final determination of these proceedings, or further order. E
F F
3. It is relevant to note that orders in similar terms to the
G proprietary and worldwide Mareva injunctions were granted against G
Madam Ding by a Court in London on 30 July 2024 (“London Order”).
H H
I 4. On the materials provided to me, I am satisfied that Madam I
Ding has been served with the documents in the Hong Kong proceedings,
J J
and I think she has also been served with the documents leading to and
K including the London Order. But Madam Ding has yet to engage in the K
Hong Kong proceedings and is not represented.
L L
M 5. Mr Manzoni SC, who appears for the Plaintiff this morning M
as on the previous hearings, has informed me that solicitors in London
N N
who may potentially be instructed by Madam Ding in relation to the
O proceedings in London have contacted the solicitors acting for the O
Plaintiff in London. Amongst other things, those solicitors have
P P
requested a variation of the London Order to permit Madam Ding to
Q spend a greater sum on legal fees than is currently permitted under the Q
terms of that order, and to extend the date for the ancillary asset
R R
disclosure required by the London Order from its current date of within
S four days of service of the London Order on Madam Ding to a new date S
of 9 August 2024.
T T
U U
V V
- 4 -
A A
6. I have seen correspondence between the sets of London
B B
solicitors, by which it appears that the Plaintiff is content to agree to a
C variation of the London order to permit Madam Ding to spend the sum of C
£150,000 up to 7 August 2024, and for the asset disclosure deadline to be
D D
extended to 4pm on 7 August 2024 – though I do not think that extension
E has yet been agreed, and there may yet be a variation application to be E
heard by the Court in London.
F F
G 7. I do not think I need to be concerned about the relevant G
figure permitted for expenditure on legal fees. But I am concerned
H H
about the potential or actual mismatch between the asset disclosure
I deadlines in the order made by me and the London Order. I think it I
would be unattractive for the Hong Kong order to continue to contain the
J J
deadline to provide essentially the same asset disclosure as is required
K under the London Order, on a date which is earlier than the Plaintiff is K
prepared to accept by way of a variation to the current terms of the
L L
London Order. In essence, I do not think that Madam Ding should be
M left in the position that she risks being held in contempt of court, or M
required to run that risk, notwithstanding that the Plaintiff has indicated
N N
that in practice it would unlikely complain if disclosure is not provided in
O Hong Kong by the deadline which the Plaintiff is content to agree in O
P
London. P
Q 8. In those circumstances, whilst I am prepared – on the Q
materials and in the exercise of my discretion – to continue the Chabra
R R
Mareva injunction and the proprietary and worldwide Mareva injunctions
S S
against Madam Ding until trial or further order, I will do so on the basis
T
that I vary the deadline for the provision of asset disclosure under the T
Mareva injunction order to 7 August 2024.
U U
V V
- 5 -
A A
9. I am conscious that this may not be an entirely satisfactory
B B
way of bringing the appropriate deadlines in London and in Hong Kong
C into line, but it seems that matter can be revisited as appropriate C
depending on what occurs in London, and once Madam Ding has the
D D
opportunity properly to instruct solicitors in London and, it may be hoped,
E in Hong Kong. E
F F
10. A further matter which arises this morning is in relation to
G the current confidentiality orders applicable to these proceedings. In the G
underlying winding up proceedings relating to the Plaintiff,
H H
HCCW 2020/2022 (“HCCW Action”), Linda Chan J has made orders on
I 20 March 2024 and 25 July 2024 cloaking the HCA Action and/or claims I
against the defendants to that action with confidentiality/anonymity. As
J J
I understand it, that was in the circumstances that the Plaintiff was
K continuing to make investigation into its claim which it had protected by K
issue of the writ in the HCA Action, and also against a concern as to risk
L L
of dissipation of assets (which risk I have found to exist in my making of
M the various injunction orders). I have also accordingly made M
confidentiality orders in the HCMP Action.
N N
O 11. Obviously, the confidentiality orders have been sought by O
the Plaintiff for the intended potential benefit ultimately of the creditors
P P
of the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff has recognised that once the writ in the
Q HCA Action has been served on the defendants, the need or justification Q
for confidentiality no longer exists, and the confidentiality orders can be
R R
discontinued.
S S
12. Ordinarily, I would be minded to accede immediately to
T T
lifting the confidentiality orders as has been requested by the Plaintiff.
U U
V V
- 6 -
A A
But Mr Manzoni has properly reminded me that the 2nd defendant in both
B B
the HCMP Action and HCA Action (“Mr Xia”) has previously expressed
C a concern about being identified, even in circumstances where an initial C
was used instead of his name in the heading or listing of proceedings.
D D
The concern was expressed in correspondence sent to me in response to
E my indication that I intended to publish (by uploading to the judiciary E
website) my recent decision made in the context of the worldwide
F F
Mareva injunction application proceedings involving Mr Xia – whose
G application to discharge the injunction against him will be heard by me on G
2 October 2024. I did not think that the concerns expressed warranted
H H
not uploading the decision suitably anonymized, and it was indeed
I published. I
J J
13. However, against that background, I have considered
K whether it would be appropriate now to lift the confidentiality order K
without first hearing from Mr Xia. Having adjourned the hearing briefly
L L
this morning so as to take the time to think about it, I do not think it is
M necessary to hear first from Mr Xia. The matter seems to me to be quite M
clear. Had there been no confidentiality order made in the first place,
N N
Mr Xia would almost certainly have had no proper basis to have
O requested the fact that he is made a defendant to the HCA Action (or the O
P
HCMP Action) to be cloaked by confidentiality or anonymity. P
Ordinarily business of the sort being litigated in these proceedings would
Q Q
be conducted in accordance with the usual principles of transparency and
R
open justice. The HCCW Action is being conducted in the usual way. R
The confidentiality/anonymity orders were sought and obtained by the
S S
Plaintiff for reasons which the Plaintiff properly recognizes no longer
T pertain, following service of the writ in the HCA Action on the T
defendants to that action.
U U
V V
- 7 -
A A
14. The orders made in the HCCW Action were plainly intended
B B
to have limited duration, and were made expressly until further order of
C the Court. The Court not being only the Court as constituted by Linda C
Chan J, it is appropriate for me to make the orders I now think to be
D D
appropriate. I will therefore lift the confidentiality as regards the HCA
E Action (by making orders in and/or as regards to the HCA Action and E
HCCW Action) and in the HCMP Action.
F F
G 15. Lastly, on the materials now provided to me, I am satisfied G
that it is appropriate to grant leave to serve a concurrent writ in the HCA
H H
Action out of the jurisdiction on the 3rd defendant to that action (“CFO
I Pan”), at the identified addressed in the People’s Republic of China or I
elsewhere in the People’s Republic of China.
J J
K 16. I make the appropriate orders in accordance with the above K
terms, which can be drawn up for my approval.
L L
M M
N N
(Russell Coleman)
O O
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
P P
Q Mr Charles Manzoni SC, instructed by Karas So LLP, for the plaintiff Q
R The 3rd defendant in HCMP 1080/2024, acting in person, absent R
S S
T T
U U
V V