黃添圣

炒股就看金麒麟分析師研報(bào)，權(quán)威，專業(yè)，及時(shí)，全面，助您挖掘潛力主題機(jī)會(huì)！

來(lái)源：李丹Fintalk

HCMP2772/2024 [2025]HKCFI3355 

INTHEHIGHCOURTOFTHE

HONGKONGSPECIALADMINISTRATIVEREGION

COURTOFFIRSTINSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUSPROCEEDINGSNO2772OF2024

________________

INTHEMATTERofsection21MoftheHighCourtOrdinance(Cap.4)inaidofaclaimbeforetheHangzhouIntermediatePeople'sCourt

________________

BETWEEN

JACKYZONG(宗繼昌)1st Plaintiff

JESSIEJIELIZONG(宗婕莉)2nd Plaintiff

JERRYJISHENGZONG(宗繼盛)3rd Plaintiff

and

KELLYFULIZONG(宗馥莉)1st Defendant

JIANHAOVENTURESLIMITED2ndDefendant

________________

Before:DeputyHighCourtJudge GaryCCLaminChambers(Opentopublic)

DateofHearing:11 July2025

DateofDecision:1August 2025

DECISION

I. INTRODUCTION

1.Beforemeare:-

(1)theOriginatingSummons(the“OriginatingSummons”)filedbythe1st to3rd Plaintiffs(the“Plaintiffs”)on30December2024seekinganorderundersection21MoftheHighCourtOrdinance(Cap.4)(the“HCO”)restrainingthe1st and2nd Defendants(the“Defendants”)fromdisposingofordealingwithcertainassetsinaHongKongbankaccountinaidofproceedingscommencedortobecommencedinHangzhou,PRC;and

(2)aninter-partesSummons(the“InterlocutorySummons”)filedbythePlaintiffson30December2024seekinganinterlocutoryinjunctionpendingthesubstantivedisposaloftheOriginatingSummons.

2.AtthehearingoftheInterlocutorySummonson3January2025beforeDHCJGraceChow,theDefendantsofferedanundertakingnottowithdraworencumbertheassetsinquestionuntilthesubstantivedeterminationoftheInterlocutorySummons,upontheacceptanceofwhichnointeriminjunctionwasordered.

3.Forthepresentpurpose,thedisposaloftheOriginatingSummonshereinwilldisposeoftheInterlocutorySummonsaswell.

II. PARTIES

4.Thepartiesessentiallyarefromtwofamiliesunderthesamefather,thelateZongQinghou(“ZongSenior”),whopassedawayon25February2024. ZongSeniorwasthefoundingchairmanandCEOofHangzhouWahahaGroupCoLtd(“WahahaGroup”),abeverageproducerinChina. 

5.The1st,2nd and3rd Plaintiffs(“Jacky”,“Jessie”and“Jerry”respectively)arethethreechildrenZongSeniorhadwithMadamDuJianying(“MadamDu”).  

6.The1st Defendant(“Kelly”)isthedaughterZongSeniorhadwithMadamShiYouzhen(“MadamShi”). SheisthechairmanofWahahaGroup. The2nd Defendant(“JianHao”)isaBVIcompany,whosesoleregisteredshareholderhassince2February2024beenKelly,andwhosesoledirectorwasZongSeniorpriortohisdemiseon25February2024,thereafterreplacedbyKelly.

7.JianHaoholdsvariousassetsinHongKong,amongwhichisthenetassetsofUS$1,799,062,412.25asat31May2024heldinitsaccountmaintainedwithHSBC(the“HSBCAccount”),consistingmainlyofbondsandotherfixedincomeassetsandsomecashandtimedeposits. ThesubjectassetsforthepreservationordernowthePlaintiffsseekaretheseassetsintheHSBCAccount(the“HSBCAccountAssets”). Forconvenience,IshallrefertotheotherassetsheldbyJianHaothantheHSBCAccountAssetsasthe“OtherAssets”.

8.ZongSeniorlefttwowillsexecutedon2February2024(the“Wills”),oneofwhichconcernedhisspecificoffshoreassetsbutdidnotcoverJianHaoanditsassets,andtheotherofwhichconcernedhisonshoreassetsinMainlandChina. TheWillsdidnotnameanyofthePlaintiffsorMadamDu,butnamed,amongothers,Kelly,MadamShiandZongSenior’smotherWangShuzhen(“MadamWang”),asbeneficiaries. TheexecutorsnamedbybothWillsareChenHan 陳漢(alawyerofHanKunLawOffices)andGuoHong 郭虹. IhastentoaddthatthepresentproceedingsdonotinanyaspectconcerntheadministrationoftheestateofZongSenior. Thisjustprovidesthebackgroundtounderstandtheagreementsbetweenthepartiesmentionedbelow,whichrefertotheWills.

III. PLAINTIFFS’EVIDENCE

9.ThePlaintiffs’casereliesprimarilyonthreedocuments. Thefirstisanundatedhandwrittendocument(the“HandwrittenInstructions”)which,accordingtothePlaintiffs,washandwrittenbyZongSeniorhimselfinaboutlateJanuary2024. TheHandwrittenInstructionswasaddressedtoGuoHong. 

10.TheHandwrittenInstructionsstated:-

“郭虹

準(zhǔn)備去香港辦理三個(gè)人的信托，在匯豐辦，每人七億美金，需辦理下列工作：

1、我的信托就是拿利息，要求匯豐銀行給予較優(yōu)惠的利息，我們長(zhǎng)期不動(dòng)，僅能收取利息使用。

2、按香港法律要求，簽訂信托合同，并請(qǐng)香港公證處公證。

3、受益人僅是其本人與子孫，與配偶沒(méi)有關(guān)系，系婚前財(cái)產(chǎn)。

4、匯豐賬目美金尚不夠，請(qǐng)把人民幣換成美金。

5、先辦理繼昌/婕莉的，若美金募足了，請(qǐng)繼盛請(qǐng)假回來(lái)辦理好。

宗慶后”(emphasisadded)

11.Onabout2February2024,ZongSeniorexecutedadocumententitled“委托書(shū)”dated2February2024(the“LetterofEntrustment”). ThisistheseconddocumentthePlaintiffsrelyon. Itstatedthat:-

“委托書(shū)

甲方：宗慶后（“委托人” ）

…

乙方：宗馥莉（Zong,KellyFuli）（ “受托人” ）

…

鑒于：

1.JianHaoVenturedLimit （建浩創(chuàng)投有限公司）為一家根據(jù)BVI法律注冊(cè)成立的公司…公司經(jīng)登記的股東為乙方，甲方為唯一董事；

2.JianHaoVenturedLimit 持有兩部份資產(chǎn)，包括 (1) 于香港上海匯豐銀行有限公司（HSBCHongkong）開(kāi)設(shè)的賬號(hào)下的資產(chǎn)（下稱 “標(biāo)的財(cái)產(chǎn)” ）；(2) 在高盛、渣打、瑞銀、工銀、中銀等其他銀行開(kāi)設(shè)的賬戶內(nèi)的資產(chǎn)（下稱 “其他銀行的財(cái)產(chǎn)”）；

3. 雙方確認(rèn)乙方為替甲方代持上述資產(chǎn)，包括公司股權(quán)及資產(chǎn)；

現(xiàn)甲方和乙方本著自愿、誠(chéng)信的原則，經(jīng)充分協(xié)商，就甲方委托乙方運(yùn)用上述標(biāo)的財(cái)產(chǎn)設(shè)立境外信托的相關(guān)事宜達(dá)成如下協(xié)議，以資共同遵守。

一、甲方委托乙方以乙方作為設(shè)立人分別設(shè)立三個(gè)境外信托（三個(gè)信托單獨(dú)簡(jiǎn)稱為‘信托A’‘信托B’‘信托C’，合稱為宗氏境外家族信托），信托A以宗繼昌 [Jacky] 及其子女作為信托受益人；信托B以宗婕莉 [Jessie] 及其子女作為信托受益人；信托C以宗繼盛 [Jerry] 及其子女作為信托受益人。

二、本協(xié)議第一條所約定之宗氏家族信托受益人僅包括宗繼昌、宗婕莉、宗繼盛及其子女，信托利益為他們的婚前個(gè)人財(cái)產(chǎn)，受益人不包括該等人士的配偶。

三、甲方委托乙方設(shè)立的宗氏家族信托為不動(dòng)本信托，即信托資產(chǎn)繼續(xù)在HSBCHongkong進(jìn)行固定收益投資，只就利息收益進(jìn)行分配，任何人士不得主張動(dòng)用信托財(cái)產(chǎn)本金向受益人作分配。

四、在完成上述“三” 項(xiàng)之后，對(duì)于其他銀行存放的財(cái)產(chǎn)，甲方確定將所有資產(chǎn)利益歸屬于乙方，由乙方自行處理?！?originalemphasis)

12.Alsoon2February2024,KellysignedaChineseconfirmationletter(the“ConfirmationLetter”)confirmingheragreementtotheLetterofEntrustment. ItisalsoonthisdaywhenKellybecamethesoleshareholderofJianHao.

13.On25February2024,ZongSeniorpassedaway.

14.On14March2024,Kelly,Jacky,JessieandJerryenteredintoanagreementtitled“協(xié)議”(the“Agreement”)inrelationtothemattersarisingfromZongSenior’sdemise. ThisisthethirddocumentthePlaintiffsrelyon. Itprovidedthat:-

“協(xié)議

甲方：宗馥莉

…

乙方一：宗繼昌

…

乙方二：宗婕莉

…

乙方三：宗繼盛

…三位乙方合稱“乙方”，甲方、乙方合稱 “各方”。2024年2月25日，宗慶后先生…因病逝世…現(xiàn)各方就宗慶后先生之遺產(chǎn)處置事宜，經(jīng)協(xié)商達(dá)成一致約定如下：1. 各方確認(rèn)，宗慶后先生于2024年2月2日訂立的遺囑合法有效，各方認(rèn)可宗慶后先生在公證遺囑中的所有安排。2. 乙方確認(rèn)，宗馥莉、施幼珍、王樹(shù)珍三位繼承人具有辦理宗慶后先生繼承權(quán)公證及其他資產(chǎn)承繼相關(guān)程序的全部權(quán)限，乙方承認(rèn)前述繼承人完成的相關(guān)遺產(chǎn)繼承程序合法有效，承諾不以任何形式挑戰(zhàn)相關(guān)程序之效力。3. 甲方承諾，將以JianHaoVenturesLimited(建浩創(chuàng)投有限公司) 在匯豐銀行香港特別行政區(qū)開(kāi)立的賬戶內(nèi)的資產(chǎn)之權(quán)益，依據(jù)本協(xié)議第4條的內(nèi)容為三位乙方設(shè)立一個(gè)信托（共設(shè)三個(gè)信托）。甲方已聘請(qǐng)適格的律師事務(wù)所及相關(guān)專業(yè)人士開(kāi)展相關(guān)信托的設(shè)立工作。4. 根據(jù)宗慶后先生的意愿，上述信托初始規(guī)模為每個(gè)信托美金柒億元整（總金額為二十一億美金整），為不可撤銷的不動(dòng)本信托，即信托資產(chǎn)繼續(xù)在HSBCHongKong進(jìn)行固定收益投資，只就利息收益進(jìn)行分配，任何人士不得主張動(dòng)用信托財(cái)產(chǎn)本金向受益人作分配。5. 信托設(shè)立預(yù)計(jì)以一個(gè)PTC（PrivateTrustCompany）模式過(guò)渡到專業(yè)受托人階段，在PTC過(guò)渡階段，甲方擔(dān)任受托人的股東，信托架構(gòu)中的其他角色由郭虹女士及陳漢先生根據(jù)實(shí)際情況并咨詢相關(guān)專業(yè)意見(jiàn)后擔(dān)任；在過(guò)渡期結(jié)束后，則由乙方指定的人士來(lái)?yè)?dān)任。6. 信托過(guò)渡期結(jié)束之后（即進(jìn)入專業(yè)受托人階段），甲方不再參與信托的任何管理，全部由乙方來(lái)管理。初始信托財(cái)產(chǎn)完整交付之后，甲方解除其責(zé)任。7. 甲方應(yīng)當(dāng)按照本協(xié)議約定完成JianHaoVenturesLimited（建浩創(chuàng)投有限公司）資產(chǎn)的信托設(shè)立工作，甲方不得以作為或不作為的方式阻礙信托的設(shè)立工作或資產(chǎn)交付。8. 乙方應(yīng)當(dāng)按照本協(xié)議約定配合完成遺產(chǎn)繼承、分割、分配等環(huán)節(jié)相關(guān)手續(xù)，乙方不得以作為或不作為方式妨礙遺囑的執(zhí)行或公司經(jīng)營(yíng)。9…10. 凡因本協(xié)議所發(fā)生的或與本協(xié)議有關(guān)的一切爭(zhēng)議，本協(xié)議各方可通過(guò)友好協(xié)商解決。在協(xié)商不能解決或一方不愿通過(guò)協(xié)商解決時(shí)，任何一方應(yīng)向浙江省杭州市有管轄權(quán)的人民法院提起訴訟。”(emphasisadded)

15.Itisclearthattherewas quidproquo undertheAgreement,namely,thePlaintiffshallrecgonisetheWillsandshallnothindertheadministrationthereunder,andKellyshallsetupoffshoretrustsforthePlaintiffs.

16.Further,fromtheHandwrittenInstructions,theLetterofEntrustmentandtheAgreement(collectively,the“Documents”),itisreasonablyclearthattheHSBCAccountAssetsshallbeforoffshoretrustsforthePlaintiffs,whiletheOtherAssetsshallbeforKelly.

17.InthePlaintiffs’supportingaffirmation,JackymentionsthefollowingmattersinrespectofhowKellyhashandledZongSenior’sassets. First,hementionsthattherehavebeenunauthorisedwithdrawalsbyKellyfromtheHSBCAccountwithoutthePlaintiffs’knowledgeandconsent. HeexplainsthattheyhavereceivedonlytwomonthlybankstatementsinrespectoftheHSBCAccount. Oneisasat31January2024(the“January2024Statement”)andtheotherisasat31May2024(the“May2024Statement”). TheformerwasprovidedtoMadamDubyGuoHonginaroundMay2024,andthelatterwasprovidedtoMadamDubyHongChanchan(“Hong”)(whowasadirectorofWahahaGroupandasubordinateofKelly)inaroundJuly2024. Bycomparison,theyobservesomeunauthorisedwithdrawals. Theyrefertothefollowingas“examples”:-

(1)ThevalueoftheassetsheldinUSD,CAD,AUD,GBP,EURandJPYalldecreased,andthevalueofassetsinHKDandCNYincreased;

(2)US$5,244,600.17waswithdrawnbetween1January2024and30April2024;and

(3)US$1,085,120hadsince30April2024beenwithdrawn.

18.Second,JackymentionsthatKellyhasfailedorrefusedtosigntherelevantdocumentstosetupthethreeoffshoretrusts(the“OffshoreTrusts”)asinstructedbytheLetterofEntrustmentandagreedundertheAgreement.

19.ItisthePlaintiffs’understandingfromMadamDuthatZongSeniorhad,priortohisdemise,indicatedorallythatTridentTrustCompany(HK)Limited(“TridentTrust”)shouldbeengagedasthetrustcompanyfortheOffshoreTrust. On18June2024,ChenHanemailedKelly,herPRClawyerSunShiqi(“Sun”)ofJingtian&Gongcheng(“JTGC”)andMadamDuinformingthatChenHan’steamhadpreparedthedocumentsnecessaryforsettinguptheOffshoreTrustsandsuggestingthatKellyshould(1)firstsetupthetruststructure;(2)openabankaccountwithHSBC;and(3)transferthepropertyintothetrusts. However,onthesameday,SunrepliedonbehalfofKelly,sayingthatthepartieshadnotagreedonthesepoints. SunstatedthatthefirststeptotakewouldbetodeterminetrustpropertyandforthepartiestoagreetothevalueoftheHSBCAccountAssets. SunalsowarnedChenHannottointerferewiththetrustworkandthatheshouldstayasaneutralestateadministrator.

20.On25June2024,YanWensheng(“Yan”)ofTridentTrustemaileddrafttrustdeedsfortheOffshoreTrustsandotherdocumentstoSunforKelly’ssignature. Further,on22and23July2024,YansentatransferinstructionformfromHSBCforthetransferofassetsintotheOffshoreTruststoSunforKellysigning. However,Kellyfailedorrefusedtosignthedocuments. On13August2024,inanemailreplytoMadamDu’semailof7August2024enquiringabouttheprogressofsettingupthetrusts,SunstatedthatKellyhadengagedTMFGroup(“TMF”)forsettingupthetrustsandattachedtothereplyemailthefeeproposal,andexplainedthattheengagementofTMFtoreplaceTridentTrustwasduetotheunsatisfactoryqualityofitsservice. Sunalsoindicatedintheemailthatshewouldcontactthebeneficiariesassoonaspossiblefordocumentsandsendingthemdocumentsforexecution.

21.DisputethenfollowedbetweenSun(onbehalfofKelly)andMadamDuinrelationtothechoicebetweenTridentTrustandTMF. Eventually,inSeptember2024,Jacky,JessieandJerrydecidednottoobjecttoKelly’sinsistenceonTMFfortheavoidanceofincurringtimeanddispute. Asaresult,fromlateSeptembertoearlyNovember2024,therepresentativesoftheparties(includingYeluXu(“Xu”)andChenLi(“Li”)ofthePlaintiffs’lawyersBeijingDachengLawOffices,LLP(Shanghai)(“Dacheng”))andtherepresentativeofTMF,CindyHuang(“Cindy”),engagedinvariousdiscussionsviaWeChatandanonlineconferenceon12November2024. Variousdraftdocuments(includingdraftDeedofTrust)werecirculatedforsigning,butKellyrefusedtosign. ThePlaintiffs’caseisthatfromthediscussions,itisreasonablyclearthatKelly“continuedtodragherfeetinsigningtherelevantdocumentation”,orevincednointentiontobeboundbytheAgreement,ortookinaction(不作為)inbreachofClause7oftheAgreement. 

22.Asnotmuchprogresshadbeenmade,on30November2024,SunrelayedKelly’sconfirmationthattheassetsremainedthereandthePlaintiffshadnothingtobeconcernedabout.

23.Furthercommunicationcontinuedandreviseddrafttrustdeedscirculated. Intheemailsenton14December2024,anotherlawyerofJTGC,ZhangCongcong(“Zhang”),onKelly’sbehalf,statedthat:-

(1)KellydidnotrecognisethevalidityoftheHandwrittenInstructions;

(2)Kellywouldnotagreetoanyfurtherchangestothedrafttrustdeed;

(3)KellywouldcontinuetosetuptheOffshoreTrustatanappropriatepace; 

(4)KellyhadnoobligationtorespondtoDacheng’sinformationrequestsotherthanregardingthecontentsofthetrustdocument;and

(5)IfthePlaintiffswouldharmKelly’sinterestssuchascommencinglitigation,KellyhadtherighttoimmediatelystopsettinguptheOffshoreTrusts.

24.ThePlaintiffsalsohighlighttheevidencethat:-

(1)WhileClause5oftheAgreementprovidesthat:-

“信托設(shè)立預(yù)計(jì)以一個(gè)PTC(PrivateTrustCompany) 模式過(guò)渡到專業(yè)受托人階段，在PTC過(guò)渡階段，[Kelly]擔(dān)任受托人的股東，信托架構(gòu)中的其他角色由郭虹女士及陳漢先生根據(jù)實(shí)際情況并咨詢相關(guān)專業(yè)意見(jiàn)后擔(dān)任；在過(guò)渡期結(jié)束后，則由[Plaintiffs]指定的人士來(lái)?yè)?dān)任?！?/p>

Kellyinsisteduponaprovision(Clause5ofthedraft)inthedraftDeedofTrustappointinghertobetheprotectorofthetrustwiththepowertodeterminethetrustperiod(Clause11ofthedraft);and

(2)WhileClauses1and2oftheLetterofEntrustmentprovideclearlythatonlythePlaintiffsandthePlaintiffs’issueswouldbethebeneficiariesoftheOffshoreTrusts,KellyproposedprovisionsinthedraftDeedofTrust(Clause9ofthedraft)thatKelly’sissuemayalsobethebeneficiaries.

25.Third,basedontheabove,thePlaintiffsmakethefollowingcomplaintsat§55ofJacky’sAffirmationfiledon30December2024:- 

“Inshort,despitemanymonthsofnegotiation,Kelly(i)stillhasnotsetupthethreeOffshoreTrustsortheprivatetrustcompany;(ii)hasrefusedtorecognisethevalidityoftheHandwrittenInstructions;(iii)hasrefusedtoprovideanyinformationrelatingtotheHSBCAccount(savefortheJanuary2024StatementandtheMay2024Statement)tous;and(iv)onthecontrary,hascausedfunds(ofatleastUS$1,085,120)tobetransferredawayfromtheHSBCAccountforunknownpurposes(andapparentlynotforthepurposesoftheOffshoreTrust).”

26.Fourth,inJacky’s2nd Affirmationfiledon16June2025,beingareplyAffirmation,thePlaintiffsraisedforthefirsttimethatKellybears“seriousanimosity”towardsthePlaintiffs’sideofthefamilyandhasbeenengagedinasystematicbattleforcontroloverthefamilyassetsagainstthePlaintiffs’sideofthefamily,including10factorycompaniesunderWahahaGroupandstrippingWahahaGroupofitsassetsinherownfavour. WhileIcanseethepointmadebyMrWilliamWongSC(leadingMsSharonYuenandMrCharlieLiu)forthePlaintiffsthatsuchparticularisedevidenceisstillevidenceinreplytotheDefendants’allegationinKelly’sopposingevidence(asalludedtobelow)thatshealwayshonoursZongSenior’swishes,theDefendantsshould,asamatteroffairness,beaffordedopportunitytorespondtosuchparticularsraisedforthefirsttime. Thiswasthereasonwhyattheoutsetofthehearing,IgrantedleavefortheDefendantstorelyonKelly’s2nd Affirmation. Allthatsaid,intheoverallschemeofthings,theseparticularisedevidencedoesnotplayanydeterminativeroleinmyjudgment.

IV. DEFENDANTS’EVIDENCE

27.InrespectofthePlaintiffs’complaintofunauthorisedwithdrawals,Kellyexplainsthatthewithdrawalswerealllegitimatetransactions:-

(1)AstothedecreaseintheforeigncurrenciesandincreaseinHKDandCNY,theseresultedfromcurrencyfluctuationsandportfolioshifts.

(2)ThenetchangeofapproximatelyUS$5.24millionprimarilyresultedfromrepaymentsinMarchandApril2024ofloansandinterestsdueandowingbyJianHaotoHSBC. Theloanswereincurredinthefollowingmanner:-

(a)On27December2023(priortotheLetterofEntrustmentandtheAgreement),JianHao(ZongSeniorstillthesoledirector)borrowedafixedloanfromHSBCintheamountofHK$318,491,601.59(the“1st Loan”)tofinanceitsinvestmentin“certainfinancialproducts”;

(b)On27February2024(subsequenttotheLetterofEntrustmentandpriortotheAgreement),torefinancethe1st Loanandtheinterestaccruedthereon,JianHaodrewasecondloanofHK$321,681,875.25(the“2nd Loan”); 

(c)On5April2024(subsequenttotheLetterofEntrustmentandtheAgreement),torefinancetheoutstandingprincipalofthe2nd Loanandtheinterest,JianHaodrewathirdloanofHK$233,778,513.60(the“3rd Loan”);and

(d)On12April2024(subsequenttotheLetterofEntrustmentandtheAgreement),JianHaodrewafourthloanofHK$233,681,657.69(the“4th Loan”)todischargetheoutstandingofthe3rd Loanandtheinterestaccruedthereonasat12April2024;and 

(3)ThewithdrawalofUS$1,085,120wasusedtosettlecapitalcallsissuedbythefundsnamedNewEraCapitalPartners,L.P.andNewEraCapitalPartnersII,L.P.(collectively,the“Funds”)(“whichisnotpartoftheHSBCAccount”ontheDefendants’ownevidence:see§31ofKelly’s1st Affirmation)on22January2024and14March2024respectively. JianHao(ZongSeniorbeingthesoledirector)investedintheFundsinAugust2017andearly2022respectively. 

28.Ipausetonotethatwhilebythetimeofthe2nd LoanandthesecondwithdrawaltosettlethecallsissuedbytheFunds,theHSBCAccountAssetshadarguablybeendesignatedfortheOffshoreTruststobesetupforfixed-incomeinvestments,suchwithdrawalswerestillmade. Inparticular,inrelationtothecallsissuedbytheFunds,theFundsare“notpartoftheHSBCAccount”. Inotherwords,theHSBCAccountAssetswereusedforaninvestmentnotrelatedtothePlaintiffsatall. Kelly’sresponse,inessence,isthatthishadbeenthepracticeinthepastwhenZongSeniorwasstillthedirectorofJianHao.

29.KellyalsogivesanswerstothePlaintiffs’complaintthatshehasdraggedonherfeetinsettinguptheOffshoreTrusts. ShestatesthatherdiscussionsornegotiationswiththePlaintiffsonthetermsofthedraftdocumentsweregenuine.

30.First,KellycontendsthatClause3oftheLetterofEntrustment(quotedin§11above)meansthatonlytheinterestonthefixedcapitalwouldbethetrustassets,butnotthecapitalitself. ShehighlightsthisbecauseitappearstoherthatthePlaintiffshavebeenlabouringunderanimpressionwhichshethinksiswrongthatthecapitalshouldalsobepartofthetrustassets.  

31.Secondly,relatedly,KellycontendsthatsheshouldnotbetreatedbythePlaintiffsasamereentrusteeasifshehadnosayinthetermsofthedocumentssettinguptheOffshoreTrusts. ShereferstoClauses5and6oftheAgreement(quotedin§14above). Inparticular,Clause5statesthatinthetransitionoftheOffshoreTruststotheprivatetrustcompany,Kelly wouldbe“受托人的股東”.

32.Third,inrelationtoherinsistenceonthevaluationoftheassets,shereferstoClause4oftheAgreement(quotedin§14above). Ingist,KellycontendsthatthevalueoftheassetsintheHSBCAccounthasneverattainedUS$2.1billionandthusthereisnobasisforthePlaintiffstoasserttheirrespectiveentitlementtoanoffshoretrustofUS$700millioneachbeforethepartiescouldfindawaytomakeupashortfall. KellyfurthercontendsthatthefigureofUS$700millionforeachwasaspirationalonly,andinanyevent,shedoesnotrecognisethevalidityoftheHandwrittenInstructions. Therefore,thePlaintiffs’insistencethatcashofUS$700millionshallbeinjectedintoeachoftheOffshoreTrustsisunrealisticandinfeasible. 

33.Fourth,inrelationtoherproposaltoincludeherissuetobethebeneficiariesoftheOffshoreTrusts,MrBenjaminYuSC(leadingMrBernardMak),counselfortheDefendants,seemstocontendthatherissueswouldbeexcludedbythedefinitionof“ExcludedPersons”inthedraftDeedofTrust. Withrespect,suchcontentioncannotbemaintained,because“ExcludedPersons”wasdefinedasthespouseofKelly,oranyspouseofanychildrenorremoterissueofKelly;inotherwords,Kelly’sissueswouldnotbeexcluded. Further,duringhisoralsubmissions,MrYusuggestedthattheinclusionofKelly’sissueandappointmentofKellyasprotectorwithpowertoterminatethetrustperiodmightbeduetothelawyers’template. IrejectedthissuggestionoutrightbecauseIcannottakejudicialnoticeinthisregard,andthereisnoevidencefromtheDefendantstoexplainthatsuchtermswereincludedbecauseKelly’slawyersblindlyusedatemplateasifthiswouldbefit-for-allwithoutexercisinganyprofessionaljudgmenttotheirclient’sneeds. 

34.Thedifferencesbetweenthetwocamps,accordingtoKelly,becamesourcesofdisagreementinthediscussionsandnegotiationsthathavepreventedexecutionofdocumentsnecessarytosetuptheOffshoreTrusts. Inotherwords,KellyissayingthatshehasevincednointentionnottobeboundbytheLetterofEntrustmentandtheAgreement,thatshewasnottakinganyactionorinaction(inbreachofClause7oftheAgreement)topreventtheestablishmentoftheOffshoreTrusts,andthatthePlaintiffsaresimplyjumpingthegun. 

35.KellyemphasisesthatshealwayshonoursZongSenior’swishes. InresponsetothePlaintiffs’accusationthatshedoesnot,Kellygivesexplanationinher2nd AffirmationthedetailsofwhichIdonotneedtodelveintoforthepresentpurposes.

V. PLAINTIFFS’CASE

36.ThePlaintiffs’caseisthat:-

(1)TheAgreementisgovernedbyHongKonglaw(whichtheDefendantsdonothaveevidencetodisputeforthepresentpurpose,though MrYuexpresslyreservesthepositionforanysubsequentproceedings,whetherinHongKongorthePRC); 

(2)KellyhasbreachedtheAgreementbyfailingtosetuptheOffshoreTrusts,andbreachedtheAgreementbyher“inaction”contrarytoClause7oftheAgreement;and

(3)Kellyisaconstructivetrusteeand/orfiduciaryinrelationtotheHSBCAccountAssets.

VI. HANGZHOUPROCEEDINGS

37.AlthoughthePlaintiffs’caseisthattheAgreementisgovernedbyHongKonglaw,becauseofthejurisdictionalclauseintheAgreement(namely,Clause10),thePlaintiffshavetocommenceproceedingsintheHangzhouCourt. Accordingly,on27December2024,thePlaintiffssubmittedanapplicationwithaStatementofComplaint(民事起訴狀)totheHangzhouIntermediatePeople’sCourt(the“HangzhouCourt”)(the“ApplicationtoHangzhouCourt”)forthecasefilingandregistration(立案)soastocommenceproceedingsagainstKelly(the“HangzhouProceedings”)andJianHaoasthethirdparty. IntheHangzhouProceedings,thePlaintiffswouldseek,amongothers,thefollowingrelief:-

“1. 判決確認(rèn)JianHaoVenturesLimited 建浩創(chuàng)投有限公司（下稱「建浩公司」）名下在香港上海匯豐銀行有限公司…的銀行賬戶中的資產(chǎn)是三位原告享有受益權(quán)的信托財(cái)產(chǎn)（下稱「信托財(cái)產(chǎn)」）;

2. 請(qǐng)求確認(rèn)被告就信托財(cái)產(chǎn)對(duì)原告負(fù)有受信責(zé)任，需就信托財(cái)產(chǎn)的去向作出解釋;

3. 請(qǐng)求判令被告在28天或法院認(rèn)為合適的任何其他期限內(nèi)，根據(jù)[HandwrittenInstructions]、[LetterofEntrustment]、[Agreement]，履行 [Agreement] 第3、4、5、6、7條約定的義務(wù);

4. 請(qǐng)求判令被告支付原告利息收益，以21億美元為基數(shù)…

5. 請(qǐng)求判令被告向原告賠償擅自轉(zhuǎn)移的信托財(cái)產(chǎn)損失（暫計(jì)為1,085,120美元）…”

38.MrWong,forthePlaintiffs,underscoresthattheHangzhouProceedingsclaimthattheHSBCAccountAssets,notjusttheincomegeneratedtherefrom,arethesubjectassetsintheproceedings. 

39.On28February2025,uponHangzhouCourt’srequest,thePlaintiffssubmittedarevisedStatementofComplainttotheHangzhouCourt(the“RevisedStatementofComplaint”). Asat16June2025,whentheJacky’s2nd AffirmationwasfiledonbehalfofthePlaintiffs,theApplicationtoHangzhouCourtwasstillbeingprocessed,yettobe“filedandregistered”(立案). Atthatpointoftime,thereseemedtobedisputeontheevidencebetweenthepartieswhethertheHangzhouProceedingscouldhavebeenregardedasexistentforthepurposeofsection21MoftheHCO,althoughMrYufairlypointedoutduringtheoralsubmissionsthatsection21MoftheHCOcoversalsoproceedings“tobecommenced”,andtherefore,hewouldnottakethispoint. Inanyevent,justafewdayspriortothehearing,on8July2025,theHigherPeople’sCourtofZhejiangProvinceinformedthePlaintiffsbyaNoticeofAcceptance（受理案件通知書(shū)）thattheHangzhouProceedingshavebeen“filedandregistered”. MrYumadeacomplaintthatthecasenumberintheexhibitedcopyoftheNoticeofAcceptancewasredactedandthustheevidenceisnotclearwhetherthisNoticeofAcceptanceisinrespectoftheHangzhouProceedings,giventhattheHangzhouProceedingswerelodgedwiththeHangzhouCourtbutnottheZhejiangHigherPeople’sCourt. ThePlaintiffsexplainthattheredactionwasmadeupontherequestoftheHangzhouCourttominimisepublicattention. Irrespectiveofthereasonfortheredaction,lookingatthecontentoftheNoticeofAcceptancereferringtothePlaintiffsastheclaimantstherein,KellyastheDefendantthereinandJianHaoasthethirdpartytherein,itiscleartomethattheNoticeofAcceptanceisinrelationtotheHangzhouProceedings. Further,forconvenience,whicheverPRCCourtisnowseizedoftheHangzhouProceedings,IshallrefertotherelevantPRCCourtasthe“PRCCourt”.

VII. TWO-STAGEAPPROACHINSECTION21MAPPLICATION

40.Theapproachtowardssection21Miswell-settledbytheCourtofFinalAppealin CompaniaSudAmericanadeVaporesSAvHin-ProInternationalLogisticsLtd (2016)19HKCFAR586at§§47-54perLordPhillipsNPJ. IonlyneedtorefertothefollowinglegalprinciplesbysummarisedbyLisaWongJat§48of JiangXiAnFaDaWineCo.LtdvZhanKing [2019]HKCFI2411:-

“(1)Inthefirststage,thecourtfirstlyaskswhether,iftheproceedingsthathavebeenoraretobecommencedintheforeigncourtresultinajudgment,thatjudgmentisonethat theHongKongcourtmayenforce.IfthejudgmentresultingfromtheforeignproceedingsmaybeenforcedbytheHongKongcourt,thenthecourtasksthesamequestionsasitwouldiftheinterimreliefweresoughtinsupportofaHongKongaction,savethatthestrengthoftheplaintiff’ssubstantiveclaimagainstthedefendant(ifmaterial)shouldbeconsideredfromthestandpointoftheforeigncourt,andnotunderthelawofHongKong.

(2)Inthesecondstage,asrequiredbys21M(4),thecourtshouldconsiderwhetherthefactthatthecourthasnojurisdictionapartfroms21Minrelationtothesubjectmatteroftheproceedingsconcernedmakesitunjustorinconvenientforthecourttogranttheapplication.”

VIII. FIRSTSTAGE

41.Forthefirststage,MrYu,fortheDefendants,rightlydoesnottakeissueontheenforceabilityofthejudgmentthatmaybegivenintheHangzhouProceedings. However,MrYusubmitsthatwhethertheinjunctionbeingsoughtinaidisa Mareva injunctionoraproprietaryinjunctionorapreservationorder,thethresholdmustbeagoodarguablecase. Herefersmeto Hin-Pro, supra,itself. Hepointsoutthatthethresholdthereforthefirststagewasalsoagoodarguablecase. Inaddition,hesubmittedonemorecaseduringthehearing,namely, ConvoyCollateralLtdvBroadIdeaInternationalLtd [2023]AC389aPrivyCouncil’sappealfromBVI,inrelianceon§101ofwhichMrYuemphasisesthattheCourt’sequitableorstatutoryjurisdictiontograntinjunctioncanbeexercisedonlyuponthethresholdofagoodarguablecase.

42.Withrespect,IcannotseehowthosecasesassistMrYu’spropositiononthreshold. Thosecaseswerecasesof Mareva Injunctionorfreezinginjunction,thethresholdforwhichisagoodarguablecaseevendomestically. AspointedoutbyDHCJQueenyAu-Yeung(asshethenwas)in NarianSamtanivChandersenTikamdasSamtani [2012]4HKLRD872at§76,thereexistsanessentialdistinctionbetweenapreservationorderanda Mareva injunction,namely:-

“[Marevainjunction]goeswellbeyond[aproprietaryinjunctionorpreservationorder]andenablesthecourttogranttheplaintiffaninterlocutoryinjunctionrestrainingthedefendantfromdisposingoforevendealingwithhisassets,beingassetsoverwhichtheplaintiffassertsnoproprietaryclaimbutwhichafterjudgmentmaybeattachedtosatisfyamoneyjudgment…”

43.Itisthisdistinction(a Mareva injunctionhavingamoreextensiveeffect)thatwarrantsanenhancedthresholdfor Mareva injunction.

44.Inmyview,thepurposeofthefirststageisclear–iftheHongKongCourtwouldnothavegrantedtheorder,therewouldbenopointinconsideringwhethertograntsuchanorderinaidofforeignproceedings,sincegrantinganorderwhichtheHongKongCourtwouldnothavegrantedtoaidforeignproceedingsseemstobelackingincomity. ItendtothinkthatitwouldalsobelackingincomityiftheHongKongCourtwouldhavegrantedtheorderbutrefusedtograntitinaidsimplybecauseitpresumptuouslythoughtthatthethresholdshouldbeenhanced. DuringmyoralexchangewithMrYu,Imadeenquiryofthereasonwhyforthefirststage,thethresholdshouldbeenhanced. MrYu’sanswerwas,inessence,thatbecauseitisastatutoryjurisdiction(inrelianceon Convoy, supra)andbecausethepartieschosetheforeignforumtoresolvetheirdisputes,theHongKongCourtshouldbeverycautioustoexercisesuchjurisdiction. IagreethatIshouldbeverycautioustoexercisesuchjurisdiction,andastohowtoexercisesuchjurisdictioncautiously,Ishouldturntotheauthoritiesbindinguponmeforguidance. Asregardstheparties’choiceofforum,whileitmaybeareasonforthecautiousapproach,itis,inmyview,moreafactorina forumnonconveniens consideration,withwhichIamnotconcernedhere. Anapplicationundersection21M,byitsverynature,meansthattheapplicantrecognisesthattheHongKongCourtisnotanappropriateforumtoresolvethesubstantivedispute,buttakestheviewthattheHongKongCourtmaygrantcertainreliefinaidonly. 

45.Further,ifstatutoryjurisdictionand/orparties’choiceofforeignforumshouldorwouldleadtoanenhancedthreshold,theninallthecasescitedbyMrYuonthisthresholdpoint,allinrelationto Mareva orfreezinginjunctionsinaidofforeignproceedings,athresholdhigherthanagoodarguablecaseshouldorwouldhavebeenadopted. However,onthecontrary,thosecasesonlyshowthatthesamethresholdadopteddomesticallyfor Mareva injunctionwereappliedatthefirststage. Withrespect,Iseenoreasonwhy,ifMrYu’sreasonwereright,noenhancedthresholdwasappliedfor Mareva injunctionbutforotherinterlocutoryinjunctions,anenhancedthresholdshouldbeappliedassubmittedbyMrYu.

46.Ingist,Icannotseehowtheparties’choiceofforumand/orthecautiousapproachcanbetranslatedintoanenhancedthresholdforthefirststage. Inmyview,theHongKongCourt’scautionandany“foreign”orcomityconsiderationareoperativeinthesecondstage,butnotinthefirststage.

47.Itremainsformetoaddthatthesuggestion,thatthethresholdforaninjunctionorapreservationorder,ifconsideredinthecontextofsection21MoftheHCO,shouldbeelevatedtogoodarguablecase,conflatesthefirstandthesecondstage. Itis,inmyview,thesecondstagewhichwouldtakecareofthisforeignelementbyreferenceto“unjust”and/or“inconvenient”. Therefore,Ifindthatthethresholdforthepresentpurposeofdeterminingwhetherapreservationordershouldbegrantedshouldbeseriousissuestobetried.

48.Inthesamevein,MrYusuggeststhatwhateverkindofinjunctionorpreservationorderisbeingsoughtinaidofforeignproceedings,arealriskofdissipationshouldbeanecessaryrequirement. ItisnotentirelycleartomewhetherMrYusuggeststhattherealriskofdissipationisarequirementforthefirststageorthesecondstage. Heseemstosuggestboth,orseemstosuggestthatitdoesnotreallymatterwhetheritshouldbeforthefirststageorthesecondstage. Insofarashesuggeststhatitisarequirementforthefirststage,forthesamereasononwhichIrejecthispropositiononanenhancedthreshold,Ialsorejectsuchsuggestion.

49.Fromtheevidenceandtheparties’respectivecasessetoutabove,itiscleartomethatthereareseriousissuestobetriedinrelationtothePlaintiffs’claimonbreachofcontract. MrYualsofairlyacceptsthis. Inanyevent,ItaketheviewthatthePlaintiffshavealsoestablishedagoodarguablecaseontheirclaimonbreachofcontract.

50.Inrelationtotheconstructivetrustand/orfiduciaryrelationshipovertheHSBCAccountAssets,MrWongreasonsasfollows:-

(1)TheLetterofEntrustmentitselfcreatesanexpresstrustforKellytoholdthesharesinJianHaoandtheassetsofJianHaoforZongSenior. MrWongsubmitsthatthismeansthatKellyandJianHaodonotholdanybeneficialinterestintheHSBCAccountAssets.

(2)TheAgreementgivesrisetoaconstructivetrust. BytheAgreement,KellyagreestosetuptheOffshoreTrustswiththeHSBCAccountAssetsandinconsideration,thePlaintiffsagreenottocontestthevalidityoftheWillsinfavourofKelly(Recital2oftheAgreement).

(3)AsKellydoesnothaveanyinterestintheHSBCAccountAssetsbuthascontroloverthemandshalldeliver (交付) the sameforsettinguptheOffshoreTrusts(Clause6oftheAgreement),sheissubjecttofiduciarydutyofagencytypetothosewhohaveinterestinthem:see LibertarianInvestmentsLtdvHall (2013)16HKCFAR681at§§64-65perRibeiroPJ.

(4)Therefore,whiletheLetterofEntrustmentandtheAgreementmayconferuponKellyandJianHaoapowertocreateanewtrust,itdoesnotfollowthatnotrusthasbeensetupbythesamedocuments:see LewinonTrusts(20th ed),§§3-054. 

(5)WhilethelegalowneroftheHSBCAccountAssetsisJianHao,incircumstanceswherethecorporatevehicleissolelycontrolledbyaperson,“itispossibleforthecourttoinferadeclarationoftrustincircumstanceswherethedirectorsofacompanycreateasettlementandthentreatthecompanyasacorporatetrusteecarryingonthebusinessformerlycarriedonbythecompanyforthebenefitofaconstitutedsettlement”:see LewinonTrusts, supra,§3-004. Itis,inmyview,amixedquestionoffactandlaw. 

51.Builtupontheabove,MrWongfurthersubmitsthatthePlaintiffshaveproprietaryinterestintheHSBCAccountAssetsandtheincomegeneratedtherefrom.

52.MrYudisagrees. HesubmitsthatthePlaintiffsdonothaveanyproprietaryinterestintheentiretyoftheHSBCAccountAssets,butatmostKellymayhavefiduciarydutiesinrespectoftheincomegeneratedontheHSBCAccountAssets. HereasonsthattheHSBCAccountstillrunsshortofsufficientfunduptoUS$2.1billion,trustshaveyettobesetup,andtheHSBCAccountAssetsaremaintainedforinvestment,whilethedecisionastohowtomakeinvestmentrestswithJianHao,thelegalowneroftheHSBCAccountAssets. HeevengoesasfarastosuggestthatthereisissueovertheenforceabilityoftheAgreementitselftosetupanytrusts.

53.MrYualsoseemstosubmitthattherecanbenotrustuntilthevalueoftheassetsintheHSBCAccountwouldreachUS$2.1billion,orhesubmitsthatthereisoneofsuchquestionsthathavetoberesolved. However,thathastobeconstruedagainstClause5oftheHandwrittenInstructions,whichprovidedthat:-

“先辦理繼昌/婕莉的，若美金募足了，請(qǐng)繼盛請(qǐng)假回來(lái)辦理好。”

54.WhiletheDefendantsdonotadmittheauthenticityand/orvalidityoftheHandwrittenInstructions,itisfairtosaythatthisstillconstitutesatleastaseriousissuetobetried,andtherefore,thereisalsoaseriousissuetobetriedoverwhethertheAgreementwouldhavetobereadwiththeHandwrittenInstructionsforpropercontractualconstructionastowhentosetuptheOffshoreTrusts. IalsoaddthatwhilethereisnodirectevidencetosaythatKellyhadknowledgeoftheHandwrittenInstructions,whichwereaddressedtoGuoHongratherthanher,thereisaseriousissuetobetriedthatinthecircumstances,theHandwrittenInstructionswasbroughttoKelly’sattentionuponJacky’sbelief(whichis,inmyview,inherentlyprobable)thatGuoHongconveyedtheHandwrittenInstructionstoKelly,giventhatKelywasZongSenior’snomineeshareholderinrespectofJianHao(seeRecital3oftheLetterofEntrustment). 

55.Inanyevent,itisnotnecessaryformetoexpressanydefinitiveviewonthemeritsoftheparties’respectivesubmissionsonthistrust-and-fiduciaryissue. Sufficetosaythatitisaseriousissuetobetried.

56.Furtherandinanyevent,ifthethresholdwereagoodarguablecase,onthestrengthoftheDocumentsandtheevidenceaswellastheargumentsputbeforeme,Iamoftheviewthatthereisalsoagoodarguablecaseonthistrust-and-fiduciaryissue.

57.Astothebalanceofconvenience,ImustpointoutthatthepreservationordernowbeingsoughtbythePlaintiffsisnota Mareva injunction. Therefore,theexistenceofarealriskofdissipationisnotanecessarycondition,thoughstillrelevant. Instead,thetestiswhetherthereisaneedforsecurity,andwheredamageswouldbeadequate,theCourtmayrefusetograntanypreservationorder:see NarianSamtanivChandersenTikamdasSamtani, supra at§§78-79perDHCJQueenyAu-Yeung(asshethenwas). Inmyview,forthefollowingreasons,Iseesuchaneed:-

(1)AsexplainedbyColemanJin SkyMotionHoldingsLtdvChinaCreateCapitalLtd [2019]HKCFI2408at§79:-

“[W]herethereisatleastaseriousissuetobetriedontheproprietaryclaim,thebalanceofconveniencewouldnormallyfavourthepreservationofthesubjectmatteroftheactionataninterlocutorystage. Intothemixmightbeaddedthatthesubjectmatteraretradeableassets,hencetheriskofdissipation…”

AsIhavefoundabove,thereisaseriousissuetobetriedoverthetrust-and-fiduciaryissue,andthusonthePlaintiffs’proprietaryclaim.

(2)DespitethePlaintiffs’entitlementtotheincomegeneratedontheHSBCAccountAssets,nodistributionhasbeenmadeyet,andnotrustshavebeensetup. WhileKellyhasprofferedexplanationforwhythetrustshavenotbeensetup,herexplanationhingesuponherunderstandingoftheAgreementandasIhavementionedabove,thereareseriousissuestobetriedinthisregard.

(3)WhetherKellytrulybelievesthatshehasanyfiduciarydutyornot,giventhatthePlaintiffsareentitledtotheincomegeneratedontheHSBCAccountAssets,andonewouldhavethoughtthatifKellyistruetoherresponsibility,evenifshereallybelievesthatshehasnolegalresponsibility,shewouldhavebeenmorewillingthanshehasappeared(ifatall)toprovideinformationtothePlaintiffsinrelationtotheHSBCAccount. However,onthecontrary,shehasallalongmaintainedthatshehasnolegalobligationtodosoandhasnotprovidedanysuchinformationtothePlaintiffs. Afortiori,wherethetrust-and-fiduciaryissueisaseriousissuetobetried,thereisalsoaseriousissuetobetriedoverwhethertheDefendantshavelegalobligationtoprovidesuchinformationtothePlaintiffsconcerningthetrustassetsortheassetssubjecttothefiduciary’smanagementorcontrol:see LibertarianInvestmentsLtdvHall, supra at§167perLordMillettNPJ; LewinonTrusts, supra§21-035. AllthesebegforthequestionwhytheDefendantshaveappearedreluctanttoprovidetheinformation.

(4)Kelly’sproposalforaprovisioninthedraftDeedofTrusttoincludeherownissuecontrarytotheAgreement,coupledwithherarguablebreachoftheAgreementandinexplicablereluctancetoprovideinformationtothePlaintiffs,pointstosomerisk(thoughnotnecessarilyarealrisk)ofdissipation. 

(5)ThevalueoftheHSBCAccountAssetsrunuptoUS$1.8billionasat31May2024. Itisinherentlyprobable,intheabsenceofanyevidencetothecontrary,thattheDefendantswouldnotbeabletomakegoodanyorderforcompensationinthelightofthissubstantialamount,andthereisnoevidencetosuggestthecontrary.

58.Inthecircumstances,IwouldgrantthepreservationorderiftheapplicationwouldbemadetoHongKongCourt,subjecttoonemodification. 

59.TheHSBCAccountisaninvestmentaccount. EvenbytheAgreement,theHSBCAccountAssetsareforfixed-incomeinvestments. Therefore,IagreewithMrYuthatitisinappropriatetoprohibit“disposingof”or“dealingwith”. Further,theinvestmentsfluctuateinvalue. Therefore,IalsoagreewithMrYuthatitisalsoinappropriatetoprohibitanydiminutionofvalue. Whatthenshouldbethetermsoftheinjunction?

60.Duringtheoralexchangebetweenthebenchandthebar,explorationwasmadeintowhethercertainmechanismcouldbeputinplacesothatonlyfixed-incomeinvestmentsenvisagedintheAgreementcouldbemade. However,uponconsideration,Ithinkprovidingonlyforfixed-incomeinvestmentswouldbeinasenserecognisingtheAgreementtheenforceabilityofwhichisindisputeandanissuefortheHangzhouCourttodecide. BearinginmindthatthepreservationorderistopreservetheHSBCAccountAssetsfortheHangzhouCourt’sdetermination,theordershouldbetomaintainthe statusquo. SincetheHSBCAccountisbynatureaninvestmentaccount,the statusquo oftheHSBCAccountAssetsmustbeforinvestment. Nevertheless,toonlyallowfixed-incomeinvestmentmaynotbefeasible. Thebankmaysimplynotallowanykindofinvestmenttoavoidbeingaccusedofallowingnonfixed-incomeinvestmentsunlessbothpartieswouldagreethesametobefixed-incomeinvestments. ThiswouldeffectivelygiveavetopowertothePlaintiffswhichtheydonothaveevenundertheAgreement. Allinall,Ithinkaprohibitionof“withdrawal”and“encumbrance”strikestherightbalancebetweenthepreservationoftheHSBCAccountAssetsandavoidanceofinterferencewiththecasemanagementofthePRCCourt(whichisaconsiderationIhavetobearinmindinthesecondstageasexplainedbelow).

61.Inconclusion,thefirststageispassed.

IX. SECONDSTAGE

62.Whilein Hin-Pro, supra,theCourtofFinalAppealat§54saidthat“itdoesnotseemtometobeveryhelpfultotrytoformulatealistofcircumstanceswhereitwillbeunjustorinconvenienttogrant”thereliefinaid,Iwasreferredtothefiveconsiderationssetoutin MotoralaCreditCorporationvUzan(No2) [2004]1WLR113at§115(acasereferredtoin Hin-Pro§54aswell):-

“[(1)]whetherthemakingoftheorderwillinterferewiththemanagementofthecaseintheprimarycourt,e.g.wheretheorderisinconsistentwithanorderintheprimarycourtoroverlapswithit;

[(2)]whetheritisthepolicyintheprimaryjurisdictionnotitselftomakeworldwidefreezing/disclosureorders;

[(3)]whetherthereisadangerthattheordersmadewillgiverisetodisharmonyorconfusionand/orriskofconflictinginconsistentoroverlappingordersinotherjurisdictions,inparticularthecourtsofthestatewherethepersonenjoinedresidesorwheretheassetsaffectedarelocated.Ifso,thenrespectforterritorialjurisdictionofthatstateshoulddiscouragetheEnglishcourtfromusingitsunusuallywidepowersagainstaforeigndefendant;

[(4)]whetheratthetimetheorderissoughtthereislikelytobeapotentialconflictastojurisdictionrenderingitinappropriateandinexpedienttomakeaworldwideorder;and

[(5)]whether,inacasewherejurisdictionisresistedanddisobediencetobeexpected,theCourtwillbemakinganorderwhichitcannotenforce.”

63.Thislistisnotexhaustive,andcannotberegardedasachecklistasifmore(orless)ticksmeansmore(orless)unjustorinconvenient. Eachcasedependsonitsownfactandcontext.

64.Despiteitsnon-exhaustiveness,Irefertothislistforonereason. MrYuseemstosubmitthatarealriskofdissipationshouldbearequirementforthissecondstage. Itseemstomethatthereasonheadvancedisthesameasthatheadvancedforanenhancedthresholdforthefirststage,namely,itistheparties’choiceofforumandthustheCourtshouldbecautious. However,evenfromthisconcretelistIcannotdistilanyprincipleorguidanceforapropositionthatarealriskofdissipationwouldberequiredforthesecondstage. Thetest,inmyview,mustbethatmadeclearbytheCourtofFinalAppealin Hin-Pro,namely,whetheritwouldbeunjustorinconvenienttogranttheorderinaid. Therefore,withrespect,IdonotacceptMrYu’ssubmissionsthatarealriskofdissipationshouldbearequirementforthesecondstage.

65.TheHangzhouProceedingsare,asMrYurightlypointsout,mainlyconcernedwiththedeclaratoryreliefthattherehasexistedthetrustovertheHSBCAccountAssets. IfIweretograntthepreservationorder,IseenoreasonwhytherewouldbeanyinconsistencywiththeHangzhoujurisdictionorinterferencewiththecasemanagementoftheHangzhouProceedings. SuchapreservationorderwouldclearlyassistthePRCCourtbymakingsurethatthesubjectassetwouldstillbeavailablesothattheHangzhouProceedingswouldnotberenderedredundant. Suchapreservationorder,inmyview,wouldalsoclearlymeancomitytothePRCCourt–byensuringthattheassetslocatedinHongKongwouldstillbeavailableforthedispositionofthePRCCourt.

66.MrYusubmitsthattheHongKongCourtshouldnotbelefttospeculatewhatthePRCCourtwouldthink. HissubmissionsarethatifanapplicationismadetothePRCCourt,theHongKongCourtwouldthenknowwhatordertogrant(orwhatnot)wouldbeunjustand/orinconvenient. Hesubmits,attractively,thatthePlaintiffsshouldnotaskmetospeculate;instead,thePlaintiffsshouldmaketheapplicationtothePRCCourt;andthePlaintiffshaveputmeintoanunenviablesituationbynotmakingsuchanapplicationtothePRCCourtontheonehandbutcomingdirecttotheHongKongCourtontheotherhandsaying,withouteventrying,thatthePRCCourtwouldnotgrantaninjunctioninrespectofoverseasassets(seetheexpertopinionbelow),therebyforcingmetospeculate. Hefurthersubmits,inrelianceon MotorolaCreditCorporationvUzan(No2), supra,at§119,thatingeneral,onlyininternationalfraudcases,noapplicationwouldneedtobemadetotheforeigncourt.

67.Inmyview,MrYualmostputsforwardapropositionthatanapplicationtotheforeigncourtisapreconditionfortheexerciseofthejurisdictionundersection21MoftheHCO. Inresponse,MrWongunderscores,andIagree,thatthosecaseswhichseemtosuggestsuchapreconditionwerecasesof exparte applicationswheretheapplicantwouldbeexpected,indischargingtheirdutyoffullandfrankdisclosure,toapplytotheforeigncourtorifnot,toexplainwhynot. Morefundamentally,suchapreconditionwouldbeinconsistentwiththewordingofthestatutoryprovisionproperlyconstrued. Forthis,Ionlyneedtoreferto TheExport-ImportBankofChinavLiuQingpin [2018]HKCFI1840,whereLisaWongJsaidat§113thatthepurposeofsection21Mistofacilitate“theprocessofexecutionorenforcementoftheforeignjudgment,whichmaypotentiallyhavetomovetoHongKongbecauseofthelocationofthejudgementdebtor’sassetsinHongKong”. Bearingthispurposeinmind,anapplicationtotheforeigncourt,thougharelevantfactor,shouldnotbeaprecondition. 

68.Toputrestanyfleetingsuggestionthatanapplicationtotheforeigncourtisorvirtuallyaprecondition,MrWongrefersmetoafewexamples. 

69.First,in ChowSteelIndustriesPublicCoLtdvKoSung [2020]HKCFI483,noapplicationforafreezingorderhadbeenmadetotheThaiCourt,andKYeungJ,acceptingtheevidencethatitwasnottheThaiCourt’spolicyorpracticetograntanyextra-territorialfreezingorders,heldthatagrantof Mareva injunctioninHongKonginaidwouldnotbeinexpedient. Eventually,hedidgrantthe Mareva injunction.

70.Second,in JSCVTBBankvPavelSkurikhin [2014]WEHC2254(QB),EderJacceptedat§15that“theRussiancourts veryrarely issuefreezinginjunctionsinrespectofassetslocatedoutsideofRussianFederation,althoughtheycanandsometimesdograntfreezinginjunctionsagainstdefendant’sassetsoutsideoftheRussianjurisdictionswhicharesubjecttointernationalagreementwithRussia”(emphasisadded). NoapplicationhadbeenmadetotheRussianCourtforanyfreezingorder. EderJstillgrantedaworldwidefreezingorderexceptforthosejurisdictions“whicharesubjecttointernationalagreementwithRussia”. MrYucautionsmethatinthiscase,therespondentwasnotlegallyrepresentedandtherewasnocontraryexpertevidencefiled. Bethatasitmay,thiscasestillstandsanexampleofexerciseofsimilarsection21Mjurisdictionintheabsenceofanyapplicationtotheforeigncourt.

71.Third,in AnanKaseiCoLtdvMolycorpChemicals&Oxides(Europe)Ltd [2017]FSR13,theCourt’sopinionontheexpediencytograntaninjunctioninaidofforeignproceedingswas obiter only(§§43-49),incasethatthematterwouldgofurther(§42). Inthe obiter at§§48-49,ArnoldJdismissedanargumentthatanapplicationshouldhavebeenmadetotheforeigncourtbeforeanapplicationcanbemadetothedomesticcourtforaninterimorderinaidoftheforeigncourt. WhileMrYueloquentlyarguesthatthiscaseismateriallydistinguishableonthespecificEuropeanpatentregimeinthatcasenotapplicableinHongKong,Ithinkthegeneralprincipleinthis obiter isstillofsomereferentialvalueasconsistentwiththebroadtestof“just”and“convenient”.

72.Tosumup,theseexamplesdoshowthatanapplicationtotheforeigncourtisnotaprecondition. Further,“practiceandpolicy”nottogrant,or“veryrare”togrant,asdemonstratedbytheseexamples,isasignificantindicatorofnoinjusticeandnoinconvenience.

73.Allthatsaid,Iagreethatwhethertheapplicanthasmadeanapplicationtotheforeigncourt,andifnot,theexplanationforwhynot,areimportantconsiderations.

74.TheexplanationhasbeengiveninthePlaintiffs’replyaffirmation. At§38ofJacky’s2nd Affirmation,heexplainedthat:-

“IwishtomakeclearthatwedidnotapplyinthefirstinstancetotheHangzhouCourt,becausewe were advisedbyourPRClawyers[namedtobeBeijingDachengLawOffices,LLPat§28]thatwewouldnotbeabletoobtainsuchordersfromtheHangzhouCourtduetopracticallimitations(inparticularthefactthatthesubjectmatterassetsarelocatedoutsideofMainlandChina,i.e.situatedinHongKong),andalso,forthatreasonsuchorders(eveniftheycouldbeobtained)couldnotbeenforcedagainstKellyorJianHao.”(emphasisadded)

75.Inthisregard,MrYusubmitsthatatthetimeofthecommencementofthepresentproceedingsandtheissuanceoftheSummons,thePlaintiffssimplydidnotgiveanythoughttowhetherthePRCCourtswouldorwouldnotgrantapreservationorderontheHSBCAccountAssets,asamatteroflaw,practiceorpolicy,orotherwise. HepointsoutthattherewasnoexplanationofferedatthefirsthearingoftheSummonson3January2025beforeDHCJGraceChow,andthattheaboveexplanationonlycameasanafterthought. MrYusubmits,therefore,thatfirst,thePlaintiffsdidnotputtheirapplicationinproperorderinthefirstplace,andsecond,thePlaintiffswasforum-shoppingforthepreservationorder. HeurgesmenottoallowtheHongKongCourttobeutilisedorabusedinsuchway. Withrespect,althoughthePlaintiffscouldhavedonebetterbygivingtheexplanationintheirsupportingaffirmation,however,ontheaffirmationevidenceputbeforeme,Icannotrejecttheaboveexplanationasanafterthought. Todosowouldalmost(ifnotvirtually)amounttoafindingthatJackydidnottellthetruthonoath. Thereisnosufficientevidencetosustainsuchfinding.

76.ConsistentwiththisadvicebythePlaintiffs’PRClawyers,MrWongsubmits,inrelianceontheexpertopinionadducedbythePlaintiffsasanindependentexpertopinion,thatwhilePRCCourtshavejurisdictiontograntthepreservationordereveninrespectoftheassetsoutsidejurisdiction,asamatterofpracticeandpolicy,theyveryrarelygrantsuchorder.ThePlaintiffsexpertassertsthatheisnotawareofanysuchpreservationorderandhavingcheckedthecasesaccessiblebythepublic,hecannotfindanysuchcaseseither. 

77.Asapolicyandpractice,therealmostalwaysareexceptions. Inthisregard,theDefendants’expertreferstoonecasewheresuchpreservationorderwasapparentlygranted. AccordingtotheDefendants’expert,itisaconfidentialcasenotaccessiblebythepublic,butacasewhichtheDefendants’experthimselfhandledinthepast,althoughhedidnotspecifythedateorevengiveanyideaoftheyearofthecase. Heexhibitedthecasereporttohisexpertreport,butthecasereportisheavilyredacted. Themainbodyofthecasereportisonly3.5pages,withpage5beinganannexuresettingouttherelevantstatutoryprovisions. ThenameoftheCourtisredacted. Thedateisredacted. Outof3.5pages,pages1and2arealmostwhollyredacted. Noreasoncanbeascertainedfromthecasereport. ItisnotevenclearfromthecasereportwhethertheassetinquestionwassituatedoutsidethePRC,althoughintheexpertreportitself,theDefendants’experthimselfsupplementsthattheassetwas. Forallthis,thePlaintiffssimplyhavenowaytoverify. Inmyview,thevalueofsuchcasereportislittle,ifany. IfIwouldhavetomakearuling,IwouldpreferthePlaintiffs’expertopinion.

78.MrYusubmitsfurtherthattheDefendants’expertreliesonarticle103oftheCivilProcedureLawofthePRCamendedin2023,andtherefore(1)thePlaintiffs’expert’srelianceontheCivilProcedureLawpre-2023isnotappropriate;and(2)itisnotfairtosaythatunderthe2023amendment,thegrantofsuchorderhasbeenrare,giventhatithasonlybeentwoyearssincetheamendment. Withrespect,theDefendants’experthasnottakenthistimingpointandtherefore,thePlaintiffs’expertsimplyhasnothadanychancetoreplyonthistimingissue. IshouldrecordthatinMrWong’soralreplysubmissions,heseemedtoinvitemetosearchtheInternettocheckwhethertherewasanymaterialamendmentin2023. Irejectedhissuchinvitationoutright.

79.Inanyevent,puttothehighestfortheDefendants,thefactthattheDefendants’experthastoresorttosuchaconfidential,heavilyredactedcasereport,onlyreinforcesthePlaintiffs’expertopinionthatitisamatterofpracticeandpolicynottograntsuchpreservationorder,withexceptionwhichitisfairformetosayisveryrare,evenassumingthattherelevanttimeperiodstartedin2023butnotearlier. 

80.Inthecircumstances,IseeitjustandconvenienttograntthepreservationorderinfavourofthePlaintiff,withthemodificationofthetermsmentionedin§60above. 

81.ItremainsformetomakeitclearthatiftherearematerialchangesofcircumstanceslikesomedecisionsmadebythePRCCourttouchingonthemeritsoftheparties’respectivecasesthatwouldrenderthepreservationnolongerjustorconvenient,thepartiesshouldpromptlyinformtheHongKongCourtandthereandthenfortheHongKongCourttoconsiderhowtoproceedwiththepreservationorder.

X. DISCLSOUREORDER

82.ThePlaintiffsseekadisclosureorderdisclosingthefollowinginformation:-

“a.ThelatestbalanceoftheHSBCAccount;

b.IfassetsintheHSBCAccounthavebeendisposedofortransferredtothirdparty/iesonorafter2February2024,whathasbecomeofsuchassetsandthelocationofsuchassetsortheirsubstitute/traceableproceeds,andtowhom,towhere,andunderwhatcircumstancessuchassetsweredisposedofortransferredoutoftheHSBCAccount;

c.InrespectofthesumofUS$1,085,120(“Sum”)whichwasshowntohavebeentransferredoutoftheHSBCAccountinthebankstatementasat31May2024,whathasbecomeofthesaidSumoritssubstitute/traceableproceeds,andtowhom,towhere,andunderwhatcircumstancestheSumwasdisposedofortransferredoutoftheHSBCAccount;and

d.Afullaccountofthemovementofassets,incomeandexpenditureinrespectoftheassetsintheHSBCAccountfrom2February2024untilthedateofserviceoftheOrderontherelevantDefendant.” 

83.BeforeIproceedtosubstantiveanalysis,Ipointoutthat(c)isunnecessarynow,giventhatasmentionedabove,theDefendantshavealreadyexplainedinaffirmation thattheUS$1,085,120wasusedtosatisfythecallsissuedbytheFunds.

84.Fortheapplicationforthedisclosureorder,Ihavetwomainconsiderations. MyfirstconsiderationarisesfromRelief2 soughtintheHangzhouProceedings,asquotedin§37above:-

“請(qǐng)求確認(rèn)被告就信托財(cái)產(chǎn)對(duì)原告負(fù)有受信責(zé)任，需就信托財(cái)產(chǎn)的去向作出解釋”

85.Theremustbethedisclosurebeforeanyexplanationcanbemade. Therefore,IhaveconcernthatifIamtomakethedisclosureordernowbeingsoughtbythePlaintiffsfromme,thedisclosureordermayconstitute,ormayberegardedas,interferencewiththecasemanagementoftheHangzhouProceedingsormayevenberegardedasadecisiononmeritsonRelief2. 

86.Mysecondconsiderationisthatadisclosureorderisusuallymadehand-in-handwithapreservationorderorproprietaryinjunctionasapolicingdevicetoensurethatthepreservationorderortheproprietaryinjunctioniseffective:see CarmonReestrutura-engenhariaEServicosTecnicosEspeciais(Su)LimitadavCarmonRestruturaLtd [2024]HKCFI435at§18perDHCJLePichon. Thereasonisclear:atthetimeofthepreservationorderortheproprietaryinjunction,thesubjectpropertyorpartofitmayhavealreadybeenremovedtosomewhereelse. Ifthepreservationorderortheproprietaryinjunctionistoserveitspurpose,namely,topreservethesubjectproperty,theapplicanthastoknowthewhereaboutsofthesubjectproperty,hencethenecessityforthedisclosureorder.

87.Mytwoconsiderationsabove,inmyview,canbereconciled. ImakethedisclosureorderassoughtbythePlaintiffsand atthesametime,asInowdo,makeitclear that:-

(1)ThedisclosureorderismadeheresolelyforthepurposeofensuringthatthepreservationorderImakeiseffective,andbythis,thesubjectassetcanstillbepreservedforthePRCCourttoconducttheHangzhouProceedingsmeaningfully. TheorderisthusinthissensereflectiveoftheHongKongCourt’scomitytothePRCCourt,asinthegrantofthepreservationorder. IfIgrantthepreservationorderbutitseffectivenesscannotbeensuredbyanancillarydisclosureorder,thiswouldseemtobeamockeryoftheaidtheHongKongCourtintendstoprovidetothePRCCourtandultimatelynon-comitytothePRCCourt.

(2)Thedisclosureorderisbynomeansmadeuponanyconsiderationofthemeritsoftheparties’respectivecases(saveandexceptforthepurposeoffindingseriousissuestobetriedoragoodarguablecaseatthefirststage),andisbynomeansrelatedtothemeritsforseekingRelief2intheHangzhouProceedingswhatsoever. ThePRCCourtcanandshouldbynomeansbeaffectedbythisdisclosureorderindeterminationofwhethertograntRelief2andanyotherrelief,finalorinterlocutoryinnature.

XI.CONCLUSION

88.Inthecircumstances,ImakeanorderintermsofthedraftorderatHearingBundleApages4-12withthefollowingmodifications:-

(1)Thephrasein§§1and2ofthedraftorder“disposeofordealwithordiminishthevalueof”shouldbereplacedby“withdraworencumber”;

(2)§3(c)ofthedraftorderisdeleted;

(3)§5ofthedraftordershallbecome,asproposedbythePlaintiffs’reviseddraftordersubmittedduringthehearing:-

“ThisOrderwillremaininforceuntilthefinaldisposaloftheclaimbythePlaintiffsagainstthe1st Defendant(withthe2nd Defendantnamedasathirdparty)asappliedtobecommencedintheHangzhouIntermediatePeople’sCourt(andacceptedandregisteredbytheZhejiangHigherPeople’sCourton4July2025)”;

andIadd“oruntilfurtherorderoftheCourt”;

(4)§10(forserviceout)shallbedeleted,asproposedbythePlaintiffs’reviseddraftordersubmittedduringthehearing;

(5)Thereshallbelibertytoapply;and

(6)Schedule1ofthedraftordershallbeupdatedtoincludealltheaffirmationsdulyfiledintheproceedingsandshouldmakeitclearthatIhavenotreadthepartsof§§32and37ofJacky’s2nd AffirmationwhichIstruckoutattheoutsetofthehearinguponMyYu’sapplication.

89.SinceIhavegrantedthereliefsoughtintheOriginatingSummons,itisunnecessaryformetomakeanyorderontheInterlocutorySummons. IthereforemakenoorderontheInterlocutorySummons.

90.AsregardscostsoftheOriginatingSummonsandtheInterlocutorySummons,Imakeacostsorder nisi thattheDefendantsshallpaythePlaintiffsthecosts(includingallcostsreserved),tobesummarilyassessedonpaper,withcertificatefortwocounsel. Forthesummaryassessment,thePlaintiffsshalllodgeandservetheirstatementofcostswithin3daysuponthecostsorder nisi becomingabsolute,andtheDefendantsshalllodgeandservetheirlistofobjectionwithin7daysthereafter.

91.Lastly,IthankthePlaintiffs’counsel(MrWong,MsYuenandMrLiu)andtheDefendants’counsel(MrYuandMrMak)fortheirthoroughandableassistance.

(GaryCCLam)

DeputyHighCourtJudge

MrWilliamWongSC,leadingMsSharonYuenandMrCharlieLiu,instructedbyKarasSoLLP,forthe1st–3rd Plaintiffs

MrBenjaminYuSC,leadingMrBernardMak,instructedbyAnthonySiu&Co.,forthe1st–2nd Defendants

十大巔峰盜墓小說(shuō)排行榜

小說(shuō):重生八十年代獲鑒寶系統(tǒng),竟闖盜墓世界,汪家來(lái)信挑戰(zhàn)升級(jí)

小說(shuō):山村窮小子入盜墓團(tuán)伙,奇聞異事不斷,終成鑒寶大師!