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

Rhonda Jeanine Pohn v Mac Richard Pohn And Others

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date20 May 2015
Year2015
Judgement NumberHCMP941/2015
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCMP941/2015 RHONDA JEANINE POHN v. MAC RICHARD POHN AND OTHERS

HCMP 941/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 941 OF 2015

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1381 OF 2010)

________________________

BETWEEN
RHONDA JEANINE POHN
(suing personally and in her capacity as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Maxwell Pohn (Deceased))		 Plaintiff
and
MAC RICHARD POHN 1st Defendant
LEEWARD ENTERPRISES LIMITED 2nd Defendant
GOLDERN INTERNATIONAL LIMITED 3rd Defendant

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP and Barma JA in Court
Dates of Written Submissions: 21 April and 4 May 2015
Date of Judgment: 20 May 2015

________________________

JUDGMENT
________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Louis Chan J on 12 March 2015. By that decision, the learned judge refused to discharge or vary an injunction granted in favour of the Plaintiff. In his decision of 12 March 2015, the judge set out the circumstances leading to the grant of that injunction. It should be noted that the injunction is granted in respect of a proprietary claim. The Plaintiff is the mother of the 1st Defendant and the claim is in respect of the estate of the deceased husband of the Plaintiff, who was also the father of the 1st Defendant. The injunction was granted by DHCJ Mayo on 6 November 2012 at a time when the 1st Defendant as well as the other defendants were represented by lawyers and it was granted with their consent.

2. The trial of the action is scheduled to commence on 27 May 2015.

3. The judge refused to discharge or vary the injunction primarily for the reason that he was not satisfied that the 1st Defendant has not explained what had happened to the US$1.3 million which he had previously withdrawn from the bank account of the 2nd Defendant before the grant of the injunction despite ample opportunity given to him to do so. In particular, when the application first came before DHCJ Cooney SC on 27 January 2015, the hearing was adjourned to give the 1st Defendant another chance to file further affidavit to set out his financial circumstances and how they had changed. Yet, in his affidavit of 16 February 2015, he did not give any account for the US$1.3 million.

4. The judge was of the view that the 1st Defendant did not give a full and frank disclosure of his means.

5. Bearing in mind that the injunction is proprietary in nature, the judge did not consider it...

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