XCHRX MOORJANI ARJAN RAMKRISHANDAS v. PATEL'S WALL STREET EXCHANGE LTD.

HCA 822/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 822 OF 1998

____________

_______________

R U L I N G

_______________

1. The general rule is that appeals do not operate as a stay of the order appealed against. The appellant must show special circumstances which take the case out of the ordinary.

2. The long established practice is that a stay will normally be granted only when the appellant satisfies the court that if damages are paid, there will be no reasonable prospect of his recovering them in the event of the appeal succeeding, see the Rules of Supreme Court, paragraph 59/13/2.

3. In this case, the appellant has simply indicated that it distrusts the plaintiff and points to his failure to pay rent 6 years ago in 1994, a matter about which the plaintiff gave an explanation in the course of trial.

4. I am satisfied that the appellant has failed to demonstrate there is no reasonable prospect of recovering the damages in the event of the appeal succeeding.

5. I find no substance in the appellant's contention that any kind of execution will definitely disrupt the business of the appellant's company and cause significant injury to its reputation. The answer to that is that the appellant should pay the judgment debt.

6. In this case, there is a matter put forward by the appellant in its draft ground of appeal that may have some justification and that relates to the manner in which I dealt with the expenses paid to Mr Fixit in the sum of $70,000 in the calculation of damages.

7. For that reason, I allow the application for execution of the judgment debt to be stayed to the extent of $70,000.00 and interest thereon (including for the avoidance of doubt the garnishee proceedings already commenced) pending appeal.

8. Costs in the appeal.