By Alex Liu and John Zhou
Hong Kong, 27 July 2026: A notable judgment by the Court of Appeal (CA) brings welcome clarity to the complex regime of interim relief in aid of foreign proceedings – including freezing orders, asset preservation and disclosure orders – and the circumstances in which it may be granted.
Specifically, it confirms that, under certain conditions, an application for relief should be considered on its own merits and does not have to satisfy the higher demands of the so-called Mareva threshold. The ruling carries significance for legal practitioners and potential litigants.
The CA’s judgement is handed down in Jacky Zong & Ors v Kelly Fuli Zong & Anor [2026] HKCA 1292. It forms part of a wider inheritance lawsuit, involving one of China’s wealthiest families and much covered by media, which is being heard by the Mainland courts.
The CA dismissed an appeal by the first defendant, an heiress, thus upholding two prior orders preventing her from withdrawing funds from a US$1.8 billion HSBC account and requiring her to disclose detailed information about transactions involving the account.
The orders were sought by her three younger half-siblings who claim they were promised more than US$2 billion in trust assets by their father before his passing in February 2024. The orders were granted under section 21M of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), which empowers courts to allow free-standing interim relief in support of legal proceedings taking place outside Hong Kong.
The first defendant argued that the preservation orders amounted to a Mareva injunction, which requires a higher burden of proof since applicants must show there is a real risk the assets may be disposed of or dissipated. The term comes from a landmark case in the Court of Appeal in England and Wales in 1975, Mareva Compania Naviera SA v International Bulkcarriers SA.
She raised five grounds of appeal, including that the plaintiffs lacked a strong proprietary claim to the HSBC account, there was no risk of dissipation, and the lower court judge had failed to identify the plaintiffs’ interests in the account.
The CA rejected these arguments and, in so doing, confirmed the difference between a Mareva injunction, which requires proof of a “good arguable case” and a real risk of dissipation of assets, and an order under section 21M, in which the applicant needs only to establish a “serious issue to be tried”. In the latter instance, risk of dissipation remains part of the court’s reasoning but is not the most significant factor.
The CA also rejected the first defendant’s request for more time to file her appeal and ordered her and the second defendant, an offshore firm which holds the HSBC account, to pay HK$250,000 in legal costs to the plaintiffs. The first defendant still has the option of asking the Court of Final Appeal to consider her case.
Legal practitioners and potential litigants should take note: when seeking section 21M preservation relief in support of foreign proceedings, applicants simply need to show there is a serious issue to be tried rather than meeting the higher Mareva standard.
Finally, it should be stressed that asset preservation and wealth protection are part of a complex financial sector in which specialist legal counsel is essential. Here at BC&C we have vast experience in advising clients and tailoring safe solutions to meet their needs.
Alex Liu is Managing Partner of BC&C. His key areas of practice include commercial and corporate litigation, investigations by governmental bodies such as the SFC, ICAC and Commercial Crime Bureau, insolvency and debt restructuring, intellectual property and employment matters. He can be contacted at alex@boasecohencollins.com.
A Consultant for BC&C, John Zhou is admitted to practice law in Hong Kong, the Mainland and the New York State. He has dedicated his career to cross-border dispute resolution and has vast experience in complex commercial arbitration, litigation and compliance matters. He can be contacted at john@boasecohencollins.com.
