IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1164 OF 2012
Before: Hon Chung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 12 September 2014
Date of Decision: 12 September 2014
Date of Reasons for Decision: 19 September 2014
R E A S O N S F O R D E C I S I O N
1. This reasons for decision concerns the application of the 14th defendant (“Mdm Wong”) to vary the injunction order dated 2 September 2014 (“the 2 Sep injunction”). The 2 Sep injunction is in the nature of a Mareva injunction restraining Mdm Wong (among other things) from disposing of her assets.
2. The part of Mdm Wong’s application which was opposed by the plaintiff was her application for withdrawing money from her bankaccount to pay for her legal expenses.
3. At the end of the hearing I dismissed the said part of Mdm Wong’s application. The reasons for doing so appear below.
4. The applicable legal test is undisputed. It has been conveniently summarized in Liu Xian Feng and Another v Liu Bo and Others  4 HKLRD 33 (applying Ostrich Farming Corp Ltd v Ketchell  EWCA Civ 2953). In short, it involves a two-stage test:
5. As Mdm Wong implicitly (and correctly) accepted during the hearing, the supporting affirmation did not satisfy the above first stage. Leaving aside other possible inadequacies, she has not stated (or explained why) there were no other possible sources of fund. In particular:
6. Mdm Wong’s argument put forth during the hearing that she would later be filing an affirmation as to her assets and income (asrequired by the 2 Sep injunction) is not a sufficient answer to the above inadequacies.
7. Being the applicant who brought this application, it was incumbent upon her to adduce the necessary evidence in support at the timewhen this application was heard. There was no application to adjourn this application (and no reason has been given as to why shewas not ready to have this application heard).
Ms Li Chung Nam of Robertsons, for the plaintiff
Mr Paul H M Leung, instructed by Howell & Co, for the 14th defendant