Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Golddecade International Ltd v Huang Ziqiang

Judgment Cited authorities 6 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date14 December 2015
Year2015
Judgement NumberHCA1521/2015
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCA1521/2015 GOLDDECADE INTERNATIONAL LTD v. HUANG ZIQIANG

HCA 1521/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO 1521 OF 2015

____________

BETWEEN

GOLDDECADE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Plaintiff
and
HUANG ZIQIANG (黃自強)
 Defendant

____________
Before : Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 10 December 2015
Date of Decision : 10 December 2015
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Decision : 14 December 2015

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION
________________________

1. The plaintiff was a BVI company that provided inter alia investment services.

2. By a loan agreement dated 15 February 2009, Rising Glory Investment Limited (“Rising Glory”) lent and the defendant agreed to borrow US$2,000,000 (“Loan”). On 3 March 2009, Rising Glory remitted the Loan to the defendant. On 10 February 2015, Rising Glory demanded repayment of the loan. The defendant failed to make any repayment. By a deed of assignment dated 11 May 2015, Rising Glory assigned its rights in respect of the Loan to the plaintiff. On 11 May 2015, Rising Glory notified the defendant of such assignment. On the following day, Rising Glory via its agent sent notification of assignment to the defendant.

3. On 7 July 2015, the plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant for recovery of the Loan with interest and costs. On 13 July 2015, leave was granted for the plaintiff to file a concurrent writ of summons and to serve the same on the defendant in Singapore. No notice of intention to defend was filed. On 6 October 2015, the plaintiff entered final judgment against the defendant for (a) the sum of US$2,000,000 or the Hong Kong dollar equivalent at the time of payment (“Sum”) with interest on the Sum at the rate of 8% pa from 22 July 2015 to the date of the judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment, and (b) HK$11,045 fixed costs (“Judgment”)

4. On 12 November 2015, the plaintiff obtained a garnishee order nisi against Edmund Cheung & Co as garnishee. The said garnishee order nisi is returnable before Master Chow on 18 December 2015.

5. On 30 October 2015, the plaintiff filed a summons under Order 24 rule 7A(2) and Order 29 rule 1 of the Rules of the High Court (“RHC”) for an order that The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) do within 7 days disclose to the plaintiff’s solicitors the account numbers and current balance of all HSBC accounts in Hong Kong held by the defendant (“Summons”).

6. On the same day, the plaintiff filed the 3rd affirmation of the plaintiff’s director Feng Minhzhi (“Feng”). Feng confirmed that as at the date of his affirmation, the defendant had not satisfied the Judgment. Feng explained there were difficulties in enforcing the Judgment since (a) the plaintiff had limited means of contacting the defendant, and (b) the plaintiff was unable to locate the defendant and did not know his current location (so an order for examination under Orders 48 and/or 49B of the RHC might be impracticable and/or not feasible).

7. However, Feng believed the defendant had bank accounts with HSBC. Feng (a) obtained some presentation slides prepared by Ferrier Hodgson for the creditors’ meeting of Pacific King Shipping Holding Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) (“Pacific King”) dated 27 June 2014 (“Slides”) from a creditor of Pacific King, and (b) came to know about a circular to creditors prepared by Ferrier Hodgson dated 11 May 2015 (“Circular”). Feng explained that the defendant was a former director of Pacific King, which sued the defendant for inter alia breach of fiduciary duties and misappropriation of company funds, and obtained a worldwide mareva injunction against the defendant in Singapore (“Mareva Order”), a freezing injunction in Hong Kong and a disclosure order against HSBC in HCMP2464/2014.

8. Feng pointed out that in page 16 of the Slides, it was stated that “[on] 4 April 2014, the Company obtained an order for variation of the injunction order. The Hong Kong Court ordered that HSBC provide the Company with documents relating to Huang’s bank accounts with HSBC in Hong Kong”. Feng believed...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT