HCA 4453/2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. 4453 OF 2003
________________________
BETWEEN
STONEHILL ASIA LIMITED
1st Plaintiff
KONG BHONGMAKAPAT
2nd Plaintiff
LOWES PARTNER INVESTMENT LIMITED
3rd Plaintiff
and
FARWEALTH CONSULTANCY AND SERVICES LIMITED
1st Defendant
GOLD FORTUNE LIMITED
2nd Defendant
AUDITA LIMITED carrying on business as ARMANDO Y. C. CHUNG & CO.
3rd Defendant
CHU MEI SHEUNG CATHLEEN
4th Defendant
CHAINID NGOWSIRIMANEE
5th Defendant
________________________
Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers
Date of Hearing : 28 October 2010
Date of Judgment : 28 October 2010
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
1. This is the adjourned hearing of the application on the part of the 1st , 3rd and 4th defendants for an order that the 2nd plaintiff’s claim having been provisionally struck out pursuant to Order 25, rule 1C(1) of the Rules of the High Court , the payment into Court made on 30 June 2004 pursuant to the order of the Court be paid out to the 4th defendant.
2. By the order of 19 May 2010, which I made, it was ordered that the 1st , 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs’ claim do stand dismissed pursuant to Order 25, rule 1C(6)(a) as of 30 April 2010.
3. At this hearing today the 2nd plaintiff has appeared and has referred to an affirmation where he points out that on 22 July 2010 he was released from absolute receivership in Thailand. The official order was announced on 29 September 2010. He says in his affirmation that he is preparing to file an application for setting aside the judgment and necessary legal proceedings and he wishes the Court to postpone today’s hearing to wait for his application for setting aside the judgment and/or re-trial.
4. No grounds for setting aside have been placed before me. Quite apart from the fact that the 2nd plaintiff is well out of time in applying to set aside the order, there are no grounds put forward before me as to why this matter should be adjourned any further.
5. The 1st , 3rd and 4th defendants have had a judgment in their favour for months now and no grounds have been shown as to why those orders should be set aside. Orders for costs have been made in favour of those defendants and I see no reason why they should have to wait for enforcement of the order for costs.
6. I make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the summons.
[argument on costs]
7. As the application for costs is opposed, it seems to me that the matter having been decided in favour of the 1st , 3rd and 4th defendants, costs should follow the event. Costs of this application are to be to the 1st , 3rd and 4th defendants to be paid by the plaintiffs.
(Arjan H. Sakhrani) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court
2nd Plaintiff, in person, present
3rd Plaintiff, absent
Mr Patrick Rattigan of Messrs Haldanes, for the 1st , 3rd & 4th Defendants