XCHRX FONG KA WAI v. WONG CHUN HUNG VINCENT

HCA 21256/98

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 21256 OF 1998

_______________

________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. On 8th July 1999, Master Cheung gave conditional leave to defend against the Defendant on condition that the Defendant pays $4,865,000.00 into Court within 21 days of his order. Notices of Appeal have been lodged on both sides against that order. The hearing of the appeals has been set down for 28th September 1999.

2. The Defendant applies today for a stay of the Order of Master Cheung so that he should not be required to pay money into Court thereunder.

3. The underlying action is an action on dishonoured cheques and by its defence the Defendant alleges that it had agreed with the Plaintiff that these cheques would not be presented pending the sale of certain units in a property in a project on the mainland.

4. The Plaintiff has filed evidence aimed at showing that this is not the case but that the cheques were issued by way of a partial repayment of loans made to the Defendant.

5. In support of the present application, the Defendant himself has filed no evidence. He relies on an affidavit filed by his solicitor saying, on information and belief, that the Defendant has difficulty raising the cash to make the payment into Court because his money is tied up in investments.

6. In my judgment, no ground whatsoever has been placed before the Court justifying a stay of the order of Master Cheung and the application is dismissed.

7. In his submissions, Mr. Lam asked in the alternative for an adjournment to file further evidence. He points out that his firm was only instructed on 16th July 1999. Be that as it may, that is 12 days ago and I cannot understand that why the Defendant this is insufficient time for the Defendant either to provide an affidavit setting out genuine grounds for a stay or at least stating why he has not been able to do so at this stage.

8. In my judgment, no such grounds have been made out for an adjournment. The order will be for the application to be dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.