|
CACV 103/2020
[2021] HKCA 1492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 103 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 1102 OF 2019)
________________________
| |
IN THE MATTER of a Subscription Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant dated 29 April 2015 |
________________________
BETWEEN
|
HUANG QINGZHAN |
Plaintiff |
|
and |
|
|
CHINA DING YI FENG HOLDINGS LIMITED |
Defendant |
________________________
Before: Hon Poon CJHC and Chu JA in Court
Date of the Plaintiff’s Written Submissions: 3 November 2020
Date of the Defendant’s Written Submissions: 27 November 2020
Date of Judgment: 11 October 2021
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
The Court:
1. The proceedings below arose out of a subscription agreement dated 29 April 2015 whereby the defendant issued the notes to the plaintiff for a subscription amount of HK$10 million. The plaintiff raised two complaints. One of which was that the defendant had failed to pay the first interest payment on 31 March 2016 in the manner as prescribed by Conditions 4 and 5 of the notes, which constituted a payment default under Condition 8(i) of the notes, entitling him to early redemption of the whole of the outstanding principal of the notes. The other complaint is irrelevant for present purpose. By a judgment dated 19 March 2020, Linda Chan J (“the Judge”) allowed the plaintiff’s claim on that basis: see [2020] HKCFI 484.
2. The defendant appealed and applied before the Judge for a stay of execution pending appeal. By a decision dated 5 May 2020, the Judge refused the application: see [2020] HKCFI 689.
3. The defendant now renews the application for stay of execution pending appeal before this Court. In so doing, the defendant in substance repeats the same arguments which the Judge had comprehensively dealt with in her decision.
4. We have carefully considered the Judge’s main judgment and decision. We agree with the Judge on her reasons why she allowed the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the defendant’s stay application. For those reasons which we respectfully adopt, we dismiss the defendant’s renewed application.
5. Costs should follow the event. Since the plaintiff is acting in person for the purpose of this application and has not filed any statement of costs, we will order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs to be assessed summarily. We further direct the plaintiff to file a statement of costs (limited to two pages) within 14 days, and the defendant to file a statement of objection (also limited to two pages) within the next 14 days. We will then dispose of it on paper.
| (Jeremy Poon) |
(Carlye Chu) |
Chief Judge of the
High Court |
Justice of Appeal |
The plaintiff acting in person
Ms Chyvette Ip, instructed by Lau, Horton & Wise LLP, for the defendant
|