ADVANCE FINANCE LIMITED v. PANG SZE MUI LORETTA AND OTHERS

-----------------------

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P.:

1. The judge in chamebrs granted a Mareva injunction and ordered discovery of bank statements, details of assets and various documents and correspondence. Application was made to him for a stay and that was refused. Application is now renewed before this court. There is an appeal pending against the Mareva injunction and against the order for discovery. The application before us is for a stay pending the hearing of that appeal, the order having been made only this week.

2. Counsel before us contend that there was no good ground for the refusal of a stay and it is suggested that the Defendants will be severely prejudiced if no stay is granted. In reply the Plaintiffs suggest that they need the discovery to see whether the injunction has been successful and also to see whether the Defendants do in fact hold funds in trust for the Plaintiffs. Those reasons seem to me to be inadequate for refusing a stay and there does seem to me to be some prejudice to the Defendants if a stay is not granted.

3. A further stay is requested of the order that a Defence be filed within twenty-one days. The position there is that an appeal is pending against a refusal by the judge to strike out the Points of Claim. The Defendants contend that the Points of Claim insufficiently identify a cause of action and they say, in effect, that it is impossible for them to plead. The judge gave no specific reasons for refusing the stay. It is suggested that it would be a complete waste of time for the Applicants to do what they say is impossible pending the hearing of the appeal.

4. It seems to me that the Applicants have established grounds for saying that there ought to be a stay of both the orders which have been made, and I would grant the application accordingly.

Cons, J.A.:

5. I agree that the application should be granted and for the reasons which my Lord has given.

18th July 1985