Cross-Border Interim Relief in Hong Kong(2):Application for Mareva Injunction

2026-01-09

In the series of cross-border interim relief measures in Hong Kong, the last article discussed legal principles for applying for preservation orders under section 21M of the High Court Ordinance (Cap.4), through the lens of Zong Qinghou estate dispute. This entry concentrates on the Mareva Injunction, an interim relief measure under common law.

Mareva Injunction

The power of the High Court of Hong Kong to grant injunctions is derived from sections 21M and 21L^[1] of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4). The Mareva Injunction is a type of injunction, which is designed to prevent the defendant from removing assets out of the jurisdiction of the court, so as to ensure that such assets can be seized and used to satisfy the judgment if the plaintiff ultimately succeeds in the case. The Mareva Injunction originates from the English case of Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA, and has since been widely applied as a remedy under common law.

Mareva injunction can be classified into two types - domestic and worldwide Mareva injunction. When there is a litigation in Hong Kong, the plaintiff can apply for the Mareva injunction to avoid the defendant’s dissipation of assets. The plaintiff must show that:

1. he/she has a good arguable case on a substantive claim over which the court has jurisdiction;

2. there are assets within the jurisdiction;

3. there is a real risk of dissipation of assets, or removal of assets from the jurisdiction;

4. the balance of convenience is in favour of grant; and

5. the plaintiff must comply with a duty of full and frank disclosure.

Generally when a plaintiff is granted relief by way of injunction, Hong Kong courts will require the plaintiff to give an undertaking as to damages, to pay the defendant for any loss sustained by reason of the injunction should it later be determined that the injunction should not have been granted. Sometimes the plaintiff is required to provide a bank guarantee. Further, due to potential detriment the Mareva injunction may cause to the defendant, the court needs to carefully scrutinise all submitted materials.

Section 21M of the High Court Ordinance – Interim Relief in Aid of Foreign Proceedings

Section 21M of the High Court Ordinance is one of the sources of the Court’s power to grant Mareva injunction, concerning interim relief in the absence of substantive proceedings in Hong Kong. Relevant interim relief can be a Preservation Order^[2] or a Mareva injunction. To apply for interim relief under section 21M, a precondition is that the applicants have commenced or are about to commence foreign proceedings. If the foreign proceedings can give rise to a judgment that may be enforced in Hong Kong, the court in Hong Kong has jurisdiction to grant such measures. Irrespective of the type of relief sought, the core purpose of section 21M applications is to facilitate the corresponding foreign proceedings, to ensure the foreign judgment, once effective, can be successfully enforced in Hong Kong.

Applications for Mareva Injunction under Section 21M High Court Ordinance

Where foreign proceedings are involved, the parties may apply for the Mareva Injunction under section 21M of the High Court Ordinance in aid of the said proceedings. Relevant considerations are as follows^[3]:

A. whether the proceedings are capable of giving rise to a judgment which may be enforced in Hong Kong.

B. if so,

(i) whether the plaintiff has a good arguable case before the foreign court (in accordance with relevant foreign law, as opposed to the laws of Hong Kong) and

(ii) whether there is a real risk that the defendant would dissipate his assets if the Mareva Injunction is not granted, and

C. whether it is just and convenient to grant the injunction, eg whether it would involve a breach of comity.

In assessing part B, the court may take into account reasoned judgment of a foreign court given at an interlocutory stage.

It is worth noting that if a party has already made an application for interim measures in the foreign court (the forum of the substantive proceedings), the Hong Kong court will have regard to the outcome of such application. Further, the substantive merits should be determined by the foreign court. If there is a foreign judgment, weight should be accorded to the foreign judgment on substantive merits.

Conclusion

Mareva injunction is a powerful remedy under common law. When foreign proceedings are involved and the defendant holds assets within Hong Kong, applying for a Mareva injunction through the High Court of Hong Kong can effectively preserve the relevant assets. This holds significant practical importance for creditors in the enforcement of cross-border debts.

Disclaimer

This article and the information contained within it are provided for educational and general informational purposes only. It is intended to provide the public with a general understanding of the cases or issues discussed, and shall not be construed as legal advice provided by the author or DeHeng Law Offices. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal advice. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any court or legal authority. Reproduction or citation of any content from this article requires proper attribution to the original source.

Note：

[1]with detailed provisions set out in Order 29 of the Rules of the High Court

[2]The last article discussing Zong Qinghou estate dispute concerns application for a preservation order. 

[3]See Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586