在香港法院的跨境临时救济措施系列中，上期文章以香港宗庆后遗产纠纷案分析了根据 《高等法院条例》第21M条向香港法院申请保全令的法律原则。这期文章集中讨论普通法中的临时救济措施玛瑞瓦禁令(Mareva Injunction)。
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.
玛瑞瓦禁令
Mareva Injunction
香港高等法院授予禁制令的权力来自《高等法院条例》第21M及 第21L 条1。玛瑞瓦禁令(Mareva Injunction)属于禁制令中的一种，旨在防止被告转移资产至法院管辖范围以外，以确保在原告最终胜诉时，资产能够被扣押并用于执行判决。玛瑞瓦禁令源自英国1975年Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulk Carriers SA案，其后相关禁令在普通法中被广泛应用。
The power of the High Court of Hong Kong to grant injunctions is derived from sections 21M and 21L2of 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.
关于香港诉讼：向香港法院申请对被告出具玛瑞瓦禁令的条件
玛瑞瓦禁令可以分为本地和全球的禁令。 当涉及香港诉讼，原告可申请玛瑞瓦禁令以防止被告转移香港本地资产，原告须满足以下条件：
1、原告必须证明其在主诉讼中具备充分可争辩的诉讼理由;
2、被告在司法管辖区内有资产的存在;
3、被告有转移资产的真实风险，该风险将导致原告即使胜诉，相关胜诉判决无法执行或归于无效;
4、如果香港法院不出禁制令给原告造成的伤害大于发出禁制令对被告造成的不便;和
5、原告必须将案情向香港法院作出全面且真实地披露，不能隐瞒任何对其不利的材料。
一般而言，香港法院在发出禁制令时会要求原告作出承诺，如果日后法院裁定禁制令对被告造成损失，且该禁令被证明不应准许，原告会作出相应赔偿。有时香港法院会要求原告提供银行担保。另外，由于玛瑞瓦禁令很有可能对被告造成损害，法院须仔细审视所有提交的材料。
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.
香港《高等法院条例》第21M 条 – 签发禁令以辅助外地诉讼
Section 21M of the High Court Ordinance – Interim Relief in Aid of Foreign Proceedings
香港《高等法院条例》第21M条是法院签发玛瑞瓦禁令的权力来源之一，涉及在香港没有主体诉讼的临时措施。相关的临时救济措施可以是资产保全令3(Preservation Order)， 也可以是玛瑞瓦禁令(Mareva Injunction)。当申请人根据第21M条向香港法院申请临时救济措施，前提条件是当事人在外地已经提起或即将提起诉讼。如果相关的外地诉讼能产生一项在香港可强制执行的判决，香港法院便有管辖权颁布此禁制令，以协助该外地诉讼程序。无论申请哪种救济措施，根据第21M条所作的申请，其核心目的在于协助相应的外地诉讼程序，确保外地判决生效后能在香港顺利执行。
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 Order4or 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.
根据《高等法院条例》第21M条申请玛瑞瓦禁令
Applications for Mareva Injunction under Section 21M High Court Ordinance
当涉及外地(非香港)的诉讼， 当事人可根据《高等法院条例》第21M条申请玛瑞瓦禁令以辅助外地诉讼，相关的条件为5：
(一) 主体诉讼能产生一项可在香港执行的判决;
(二) 若满足前项，原告
(i) 在外地法院具有充分可争辩的理由(good arguable case)(此处的法律依据指相关的外地法律而非香港法律)，以及
(ii) 若不批准玛瑞瓦禁令，存在被告转移资产的真实风险;
(三) 批准禁制令符合公正且便利原则 (just and convenient) ，如考虑是否涉及违反国际礼让原则 。
在考虑第(二)项条件时，如果外地法院在诉讼中段已作出附理由的判决， 香港法院会把该判决纳入考量。
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 follows6:
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.
值得注意的是，如果当事人已经在外地法院(主诉讼所在地)作出过保全申请，香港法院会考虑其申请结果。此外，案件中的法律实体问题(主诉讼)应由外地法院裁定。因此，若已存在外地判决，香港法院会考虑该外地判决对实体问题的认定。
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.
总结
Conclusion
玛瑞瓦禁令是普通法中强有力的司法执行方式。当涉及外地诉讼而被告人在香港有资产，通过香港高等法院申请玛瑞瓦禁令可有效冻结相关财产，对债权人在跨境债务执行方面有重要实践意义。
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.
参考文献：
[1]细则另见于《高等法院规则》第29号命令
[2]with detailed provisions set out in Order 29 of the Rules of the High Court
[3]上期文章所讨论的香港宗庆后遗产纠纷案涉及资产保全令的申请
[4]The last article discussing Zong Qinghou estate dispute concerns application for a preservation order.
[5]参考 Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586
[6]See Compania Sud Americana de Vapores SA v Hin-Pro International Logistics Ltd (2016) 19 HKCFAR 586 | 
下一篇：
