CEDAR BASE ELECTRONIC LTD. v. WONG CHAK KUNG t/a HUNG FUNG ELECTRONICS & TOYS MFY. CO.

1999, No. HCA 757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 757 OF 1999

______________

______________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1. On 13th May 1999, I made an order that for its contempt, the 1st Respondent Win (Takbo) Electronics Co. Ltd. do within 7 days of the date of the order pay into Court a fine in the sum of $50,000.00. I further ordered that for her contempt, the 2nd Respondent, Madam Ho Ying, do within 7 days of the date of the order pay into Court a fine in the sum of $30,000.00. No payment has been made.

2. On 31st May 1999, Madam Ho Ying sent a letter to the Court with a post-dated cheque in the amount of $30,000.00, that cheque being post-dated to 29th June. As the Court does not accept post-dated cheques, that cheque was rejected. And on 1st June 1999, a letter from the Court informed the Respondents that in view of the failure to pay the fines ordered in the Order of 13th May 1999, the motion for the issue of a writ of sequestration could be restored.

3. No payment has been made at all by either of these Respondents. The 2nd Respondent has been in contact with the Court and she has been informed that she could ask for an extension of time for payment by the issue of an inter parte summons. That has not been done. Even as of today, not a single dollar has been paid in relation to these fines. Further, in relation to the amount of money that was supposed to have been to hand at the end of June, not a single dollar has been offered by way of part payment.

4. Today, Madam Ho, on behalf of herself as well as the company, has asked for an extension of time. However, no documents whatsoever have been offered in support of her submission that both Respondents were unable to pay and she has put forward no properly formulated scheme for any payment by instalments.

5. Unfortunately, it would appear to the Court that Madam Ho is completely lacking in a proper comprehension of the seriousness of the matter. I have found that they were in contempt of Court for failure to comply with an Anton Pillar Order. Even now regrettably, it appears to the Court that they regard these proceedings as more of the nuisance than anything else. No good grounds have been given why I should not order a writ of sequestration to issue. And consequently, I would give leave to issue a writ of sequestration against the 1st Respondent for the amount of the fine, that is $50,000.00 until payment and I would further grant leave to issue a writ of sequestration against the 2nd Respondent for the amount of the fine of $30,000.00 until payment.