Chabra injunction granted in aid of Mainland proceedings for half share of property

Fergus Tam, instructed by Tang and So, acted for the successful plaintiffs in 深圳澳銀天使創業投資企業(有限合伙) & Anor v Liu Xiaolong & Anor [2025] HKCFI 959 in obtaining a Mareva injunction against the 1^st defendant ex-husband and a Chabra injunction against the 2^nd defendant ex-wife in aid of the plaintiffs’ Mainland Chinese proceedings before the People’s Court of Qianhai Cooperation District under s.21M of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4).

On 22 December 2022, the plaintiffs commenced claims in the Qianhai Court against the 1^st defendant (amongst others) for more than RMB 21 million. The Qianhai Court granted asset preservation measures freezing assets less than RMB 10 million, and not against assets outside the Mainland. Subsequently, the Qianhai Court handed down judgments in favour of the plaintiffs respectively.

On 9 January 2023, the 2^nd defendant commenced divorce proceedings. A provisional sale and purchase agreement of the defendants’ jointly owned property dated 10 July 2023 in favour of the 2^nd defendant was signed. An assignment dated 18 September 2023 was also executed. They were registered on 11 October 2023.

On 12 October 2023, Fergus appeared for the plaintiffs in making an ex parte application. Cheng J granted a Mareva injunction against the 1^st defendant and a Chabra injunction against the 2^nd defendant (subsequently replaced by an undertaking on 20 October 2023).

On 15 February 2024, the 2^nd defendant relied on 9 grounds to apply (i) to dismiss the plaintiff’s applications against the defendants, (ii) alternatively, to dismiss the plaintiff’s applications against the 2^nd defendant and to vary the Mareva injunction to permit the 1^st defendant to pay child maintenance.

In the judgment of DHCJ KC Chan dated 7 March 2025, the learned judge continued the Mareva injunction against the 1^st defendant and granted a Chabra injunction against the 2^nd defendant. In particular:-

• First, the property had been registered in the defendants’ names as joint tenants. Therefore, even if the Transfer were subsequently avoided pursuant to s.60 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219), only the 1^st defendant’s half equal share could be used to satisfy the judgments of the Mainland claims and could be subject to the Chabra jurisdiction (§§78-79).
• Second, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ submission that the approach was not to make any assessment on the genuineness of the defendants’ divorce, but whether there is nonetheless a good arguable case of real risk of dissipation and that the transfer would be amenable to s.60 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219) (§94).
• Third, the Court considered China Medical Technologies, Inc v Samson Tsang Tak Yung [2022] HKCA 41 that was relied on by the 2^nd defendant, and held that in that case, there was a dispute as to whether there was a good arguable case that the properties were the assets of the cause of action defendant, which was not made out. By contrast, in the present case, there is no dispute that the half equal share of the property belonged to the 1^st defendant (§§85-92).

This case contains an example of a Chabra injunction obtained against the ex-wife of a foreign defendant based on s.60 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219), as well as an illustration of the various grounds that a defendant might rely on in an attempt to resist the continuation of an injunction.

For Fergus’ full profile, see here.

The judgment of DHCJ KC Chan [2025] HKCFI 959 can be found here.