Brendon Wong

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal, arguing that the order appealed from was interlocutory and therefore the proper appeal route was to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the order dismissing the appellant's motion to compel witness attendance for examination on jurisdictional grounds was interlocutory and did not finally dispose of any party rights.

As such, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction, and the appeal was quashed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction (asset freezing order) against several defendants, alleging a complex commercial fraud involving misappropriated funds, illicit acquisition fees, and kickbacks across multiple real estate development projects.

While the court found a strong prima facie case of fraud against the defendant Lee regarding his receipt of concealed acquisition fees, it found no such case against the other responding defendants.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the motion against all defendants because the plaintiffs failed to establish a real risk of asset dissipation, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favoured granting the extraordinary remedy.