FONG E-FONG, CANDY v. WONG TAK ON

HCA437/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 437 OF 2005

_________________

BETWEEN

FONG E-FONG, CANDY Plaintiff
and
WONG TAK ON Defendant

_________________

Before : Deputy High Court Judge Carlson in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 24 June 2005

Date of Ruling : 24 June 2005

______________________

R U L I N G

______________________

1. So far as the question of whether that part of Yam J’s order which relates to the requirement for the defendant make full disclosurein the way that appears in the order, I agree with Miss Tong that this would be, in fact, premature where an application is beingmade which goes to the very root of the making of the Mareva injunction itself, and so I propose to make a more limited form of orderwhich I shall deal with in a moment when I recite the terms of the order I propose to make.

2. So far as the application for the appointment of a receiver and a further injunction application which is made in respect of SureJoy Limited, I take the view that this also ought to go over. This all needs to be considered, as it must, on a contested basiswhere issue is being taken in respect of whether it would be appropriate to make that order and I do not think that I ought to pre-emptthe merits by embarking on that course now. There is sufficient protection, in my judgment, for the time being under the terms ofthe Mareva of 16 June.

3. These are difficult balancing exercises and it seems to me that the right balance is struck today if I merely continue Yam J’sorder of 16 June until the conclusion of the hearing before Deputy High Court Judge Fung on 8 July this year, or further order.

4. Secondly, that the order of Yam J dated 21 June this year be varied to the extent that the defendant is to file a corrective FormE in the divorce proceedings between the parties herein within 7 days and that the corrective Form E should also be before DeputyHigh Court Judge Fung on 8 July by being lodged in court in these proceedings. It is clearly inappropriate to file that as a pleadingin this action. So that is why I use the expression being “lodged” in court.

5. As I say, the application for the appointment of receiver of Sure Joy Limited is to be adjourned and heard together with the interpartes summons relating to Yam J’s order of 16 June.

6. I would have thought costs today can conveniently be reserved.

Ian Carlson
Deputy High Court Judge

Plaintiff, Fong E-Fong Candy, in person, present

Miss Sara Tong, instructed by Messrs T Y Lam & Co., for the defendant