AMLON METALS INC v. DENNY LIU AND OTHERS

HCA 2107/2004

in the high court of the

hong kong special administrative region

court of FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2107 OF 2004

 

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

 

1.  This is an appeal from a decision of Master Kwan who refused to order security for costs in this case against the plaintiff.  The plaintiff is a US company and seems to be in a substantial way of business.  It has a claim against the defendants.  The claim arises because it has lost the value of a shipment of copper concentrate which was to be processed in the PRC and sold there.  The shipment was valued, it seems, at over US$1 million.  The plaintiff’s case is that the shipment went missing; it got passed around and, as a result of proceedings in the People’s Republic of China, the plaintiff has come across documents which tend to show that the 2^nd defendant sold or at least received the proceeds of the goods. 

2.  The 2^nd defendant’s answer to that is, whatever the documents say, it denies that they are their document.  It says they were part of a foreign exchange deal and it simply exchanged renminbi for US dollars.  Whether that was, in any event, a legitimate transaction in the People’s Republic, I do not know and I do not comment at this stage, but no doubt that will be examined in due course. 

3.  Whatever else happened, however, it does seem that the 2^nd defendant did invoice in respect of this copper concentrate which was shipped up to Shanghai.  The 2^nd defendant says it is not its signature on the invoice.  Having looked at the copies of the documents as best I can, all I can say is that if these documents are to be disputed, they will have to be disputed in Court and I will leave the matter simply at that.  But on the face of it, they do seem to show an invoice by the 2^nd defendant, because although the top of the copy that I have been shown is blacked out and difficult to read, one can at least read the 2^nd defendant’s telephone number up at the top.

4.  In my view, judging on what I have been shown, I consider that the Master came to the right decision, that this is not a case for security for costs.  The plaintiff seems to have been defrauded and has justifiable grounds for including the 2^nd defendant in its claim and this matter should proceed to trial as quickly as possible.