MGA ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. JEAN CHRISTOPHE BUREUIL

HCMP 1036/2017

[2018] HKCFI 354

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1036 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  This application was brought by the defendant to set aside the registration in Hong Kong of two judgments which the plaintiff obtained against the defendant in France, both of which remained wholly unsatisfied.

2.  The defendant applied to set aside the registration on the basis that the limitation period for enforcing the action had expired.  The second ground was that there was a set-off issue because he had been awarded certain costs in enforcement proceedings in France which it was said the plaintiff had not taken into account and had somehow misled the court. 

3.  Suffice it to say that the defendant has not appeared despite having obtained many, many extensions of time to file his evidence, and indeed time was given and leave granted for him to put in more evidence on French law.  Notwithstanding an unless order, he never filed any further evidence despite it being his own application. 

4.  The defendant was formerly legally represented, but by a notice to act in person dated 27 October 2017, he has dispensed with his legal representatives, and gave notice that he was acting in person. 

5.  Having read the papers, I am convinced that the registration was correct, and that the plaintiff was entitled to have the judgments registered.  The two reasons that had been put forward have no substance: that appears from the second legal opinion obtained by the plaintiff from the French law firm Laude Esquier Champey dated 14 December 2017 to which no evidence to the contrary has been filed.  Under French law, the limitation period for enforcement of these commercial court judgments is 10 years from the date when they became enforceable, and not as the defendant sought to contend, a period of only 5 years.  In fact, the 5-year limitation is for the commencement proceedings, not for enforcement of a judgment. 

6.  Secondly as regards the set-off, the plaintiff has taken enforcement actions in France, but all to no avail.  It would appear that the defendant has managed to arrange his affairs in such a way that he has no assets left there.  The French proceedings in respect of which a costs order was made related to the plaintiff’s application to set aside a so-called ‘donation’ — a gift made by the defendant to his grandchildren of a French property.  Costs of €4,500 were ordered against the plaintiff but that decision obtained in 2017 is under appeal, so at the moment, there is nothing owing, as such, to the defendant. 

7.  Ms Tong, who appears for the plaintiff, asks for costs on an indemnity basis, the reasons are that the defendant has really been abusing the process of the court.  He had made numerous applications for extensions of time, and then abandoned the opportunity of filing further evidence or indeed of appearing today.  I am satisfied that it is really disgraceful that a litigant should take up the court’s time in mounting what are wholly unmeritorious applications, and then not even responding to an offer made by the plaintiff that he should abandon these proceedings and the hearing vacated in order to save costs and time. 

8.  For all those reasons I will dismiss the defendant’s application and order costs on an indemnity basis.