HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD v. TAM MEI KAM

HCMP 716/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 716 OF 2004

____________

____________

________________

A D D E N D U M

_______________

1.  After I handed down my judgment on 11 October 2004, solicitors for the Applicant wrote to this court concerning Paragraph 2 of my judgment.  In the letter dated 12 October 2004, solicitors for the Applicant clarified that the Applicant had only provided the Respondent with a redacted copy of the Trust Deed dated 3 December 2003 of the Karen Trust.  The Applicant had not made known to the Respondent about any “Trustee memorandum” or letter of wishes of the Deceased.  The Applicant had not admitted the existence of such document.

2.  That position was duly noted by this court.  Solicitors for the Applicant wrote again on 21 October 2004 urging the court to give further direction to ease the concern of the Applicant.

3.  The correspondence was copied to solicitors for the Respondent.

4.  On 25 October 2004, this court informed solicitors for the Applicant that if there is no objection from the parties, an addendum would be handed down to set out the position and seven days were given to the parties to respond.  A copy of that letter was given to solicitors for the Respondent.

5.  From the response received from both solicitors, the parties appeared to have no objection to the proposed course although solicitors for the Applicant made a suggestion that the matter be restored for a further hearing.  Solicitors for the Respondent opposed to have a further hearing.

6.  In the meantime, the sealing of the order has been withheld by solicitors for the Applicant.

7.  I do not see the need to have a further hearing for this purpose.

8.  I now hand down this Addendum setting out the respective positions of the parties as a matter of record.  I do not think the clarified matter had any material impact on my judgment and the outcome of the proceedings would be the same.  I therefore see no need to re-open the case for further arguments.  It is not appropriate for me to say anything more.