The liquidators of the China Evergrande Group successfully obtained an ex parte  Mareva/freezing injunction with ancillary disclosure orders against certain defendants, including the group’s former CEO, Mr Xia Haijun on 24 June 2024.

The Court provided numerous extensions of time in light of Mr Xia's unsuccessful attempts to discharge and/or vary the disclosure order. Mr Xia eventually filed an asset disclosure affirmation on 24 April 2025; however, the disclosure only related to his assets around the date of his affirmation, not 24 June 2024 – the date of the original disclosure order.

The central dispute before the Court was the relevant reference date for the asset disclosure. China Evergrande’s liquidators argued it should reflect the date of the original order – 24 June 2024, while Mr Xia argued it was at the time of compliance – being the date of his affirmation.

The Court took a measured approach, focusing narrowly on compliance. It held that any extension of time to comply with a disclosure order does not alter the disclosure's reference date: it only changes the compliance date of that obligation. The Court said that it would be "absurd" for it to allow a 10-month information vacuum as there may have been a disposal of assets in that period.

The inherent nature and purpose of an ancillary disclosure order is to ensure the associated Mareva/freezing order is properly policed and effective. The Court stressed the possibility of the disposal of assets in the period between the date when disclosure ought first to have been given, and the date when it was ultimately provided. If that position was not properly identified, one of the primary purposes for making the disclosure order would have been defeated. The fact that a disclosure affidavit is late provides no justification for not providing what had to be provided if the affidavit had been served on time, notwithstanding that a late affidavit should also contain any up-to-date information.

Here, the order required disclosure of the assets frozen under the injunction on the date they were frozen – 24 June 2024. Mr Xia was ordered to confirm by affidavit the position as at that date, as well as provide full particulars of any subsequent dealings in respect of those assets. Further, the Court made an ‘Unless Order’ that any non-compliance within seven days would result in a debarring order against Mr Xia, and also ordered indemnity costs in favour of China Evergrande.

Although Harneys does not advise on Hong Kong law, this decision underscores important principles of common law jurisprudence for disclosure orders. For liquidators and creditors, this is a victory for transparency; for defendants, a warning that non-compliance can invite severe repercussions. As experts in offshore disputes, Harneys frequently assists clients with such matters in jurisdictions such as the British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, and Bermuda. For example, a helpful summary of the legal position in the Cayman Islands can be accessed here.