GE QINGFU AND OTHERS v. L & A INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

HCMP 2222/2016

[2019] HKCFI 808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2222 OF 2016

____________

____________

______________

DECISION

______________

1.  On 13 March 2019, I dealt with an application for stay of execution of my judgment (delivered 17 December 2018) pending the appeal of D3, D4, D6 and D7. I refer to the Decision I delivered ex tempore setting out the balance of prejudice and exercise of discretion. I have ordered a stay of execution vis-à-vis D3, D4, D6 and D7 pending their appeals which is conditional upon the sum of HK$18,669,420 being paid into court within 21 days, i.e. up to 3 April 2019.

2.  This is the hearing of D5’s summons issued 8 March 2019 seeking a similar stay of execution pending appeal vis-à-vis himself.  The Grounds of Appeal relied on by D5 in his Notice of Appeal are essentially the same as those relied on by D3, D4, D6 and D7.

3.  I have considered the skeleton arguments of and oral submissions of counsel for D5.  I do not find any reason for exercising my discretion differently than what I did in respect of the application of D3, D4, D6 and D7.  I consider that on the balance of prejudice and in the exercise of my discretion, the plaintiffs should be protected by the amount of payment into court which I had ordered on 13 March 2019 as a condition for the stay of execution.

4.  The plaintiffs ask that an additional condition of ordering that HK$3,733,884 (which represents the element of interests arising from the main Judgment sum of HK$18,669,420) be ordered to be paid by D5 into court in addition to the condition already imposed on D3, D4, D6 and D7.

5.  I do not accept that to be proper or necessary in the present case either.  At the hearing on 13 March 2019, the plaintiffs’ counsel was contended to accept the payment-in of HK$18,669,420 as sufficient protection to the plaintiffs’ interests.  There is no reason why such protection becomes insufficient because D5 has made the application for stay of execution separately.  In any event, the Court is not obliged to give full protection.  The Court is concerned to give adequate protection to the plaintiffs in the circumstances after balancing various interest and prejudice.

6.  In the premises, I order that execution of the Judgment against D5 be stayed on the condition that a sum of HK$18,669,420 be paid into court by 3 April 2019 (whether that be paid in by D3 to D7 individually or collectively) which shall remain with the court pending the outcome of the appeals of D3 to D7 and the Court's further order.

7.  I order that costs of this application be in the cause of the appeal of D5.