PRAJNA SANTI BUDHIMULJA v. SHINHAN BANK

DCCJ 348/2019

[2020] HKDC 542

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 348 OF 2019

--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------

--------------------

DECISION

---------------------

1.  This is the hearing of an interpleader summons taken out by the defendant bank on 18 March 2020 under O17 rr3, 5 and 7 of the Rules of the District Court.

2.  The plaintiff, acting in person, is absent today while the defendant and the Claimant Mr Justinus Widodo Nurman are legally represented.  I am satisfied that the plaintiff was properly served and has due notice of today’s hearing.  By a long email sent by the plaintiff today to the email address of the duty judge of this court (which was not copied to the defendant or the Claimant, but this court has given them copies during this hearing), the plaintiff asks that today’s hearing be adjourned to after September 2020.  In view of what I say below and in the circumstances, I will not adjourn this hearing and would proceed in the plaintiff’s absence.  I would add that it is not quite clear what she is trying to convey in the remaining of the email, and in any event there is nothing said there that would affect my discussion below.

Background

3.  On 22 January 2019, the plaintiff acting in person issued the Writ herein endorsed with a claim for the recovery of the full amount of a time deposit plus interest held under a joint-name account number 771-100-113246 with the defendant (“the Time Deposit”).  The amount of the Time Deposit was not stated in the endorsement to the Writ.

4.  On 14 January 2020, the Statement of Claim was filed.  It was revealed there that the Time Deposit was opened on 14 December 2012 and matured on 14 June 2013 and was held in the joint names of the plaintiff and the Claimant.  Importantly, the amount of the Time Deposit plus interest, which is the amount presently claimed, was stated to be in the total sum of US$586,380.58, which is equivalent to over HK$4.5 million.

5.  It would be readily noted that the amount claimed in this action far exceeds the jurisdictional limit of the District Court, which is now HK$3,000,000.

6.  On 17 January 2020, the plaintiff by letter to the defendant enclosed an Order made by the Family Court on 7 January 2020 in FCMP 262/2018 (“the Family Court Proceedings”), in which the plaintiff is the applicant and the Claimant the respondent, upon the Claimant’s failure to attend (“the FC Order”).  The FC Order was an interim order for financial provision for the child of the family made pursuant to Part IIA of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap 192 (“MPPO”), which provides for financial relief in Hong Kong after divorce outside Hong Kong. The FC Order ordered that a sum of US$15,000 be released from the Time Deposit to the plaintiff for the said purpose.

7.  It therefore appears that the plaintiff and the Claimant had been wife and husband and they had been divorced some time ago outside Hong Kong.  I say appears as there is no material before this court giving any further information.

8.  As it is not a party to the Family Court Proceedings and on 12 March 2020, the defendant by its solicitors wrote to the plaintiff and the Claimant to seek their joint instructions to release the sum of US$15,000 to the plaintiff in compliance with the FC Order.  The Claimant by his solicitors’ reply letter dated 18 March 2020[1] refused to consent to release the sum and indicated that the Claimant would dispute in the Family Court Proceedings that the Hong Kong Court has jurisdiction or is the proper forum.

9.  Earlier on 3 February 2020, the defendant received the written reply of the Claimant confirming that he would make a claim over the entire balance of the Time Deposit.  Similar request to confirm was also made by the defendant to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has not replied.  Her claim therefore remains to be for the entire Time Deposit plus interest.

10.  Hence, on 18 March 2020, the defendant took out the present interpleader summons.

Action outside District Court’s jurisdiction; further conduct

11.  As mentioned, the present claim clearly falls outside this court’s jurisdiction (unless the plaintiff waives her claim for any amount over HK$3,000,000; and there is presently no indication that she would).  As such, this court cannot hear the interpleader summons substantively.  It also behoves this court to make the appropriate order for the disposition of this action.

12.  As understood from the judge hearing the Family Court Proceedings, the application is still pending and the issue of the beneficial ownership of the Time Deposit can be litigated between the plaintiff and the Claimant there, if need be; and the defendant can also apply to be joined there as a party to seek reliefs similar to those it now seeks in the interpleader summons.  I understand there will be a call-over hearing of the Family Court Proceedings coming up on 23 July 2020. 

13.  That being the case, the evidently appropriate course would be to have the contested beneficial ownership of the Time Deposit and the defendant’s case for “interpleader” managed and decided by the Family Court, rather than to consider transferring this claim to the Court of First Instance; particularly bearing in mind that the Family Court has no such monetary limitation to its jurisdiction as this court has.

14.  However, I note, as mentioned in paragraph 8 above, that the Claimant indicated that he wished to challenge the Family Court’s jurisdiction and/or that it is not the proper forum, which I take it may also include a challenge as to whether leave ought to be given under s.29AC of the MPPO.  Mr Yip for the Claimant today informs me that the Indonesian court has made an order in April 2020 dealing with the Time Deposit, but that does not change the Claimant’s stance that he may make the said challenges.

15.  In the circumstance, the most appropriate course now in my view is to stay all further conduct of this action, including the interpleader summons, pending the outcome of the Claimant’s said challenge in the Family Court, if any.  And I so order, without prejudice to the plaintiff and the Claimant making their respective claims to the Time Deposit in the Family Court Proceedings and without prejudice to the defendant applying to be joined as a party there to seek reliefs similar to those sought in its interpleader summons.

16.  If the Claimant’s intended challenge is unsuccessful or if he decides not to pursue such challenge, then these matters could be taken up in the Family Court Proceedings, in which case this action seems to me ought to be struck out for want of jurisdiction.  If the Claimant’s challenge is successful, then this action needs to be brought up to consider its disposition by other means.  I therefore direct that the parties do by joint letter (if the plaintiff for any reason does not participate, then the defendant and the Claimant jointly) report to me the outcome of the Claimant’s said intended challenge in the Family Court Proceedings within 14 days after it is known.  This court can then manage this action accordingly.

17.  I give parties liberty to apply as the plaintiff is absent today and there may be other contingencies.

18.  On costs, both Mr Li and Mr Yip agree that the costs of the interpleader summons thus far incurred should be reserved.  I so order.

Orders

19.  I make the orders set out in paragraphs 15, 17 and 18 above and give the direction set out in paragraph 16 above.