SO PO TONG v. RICHARD PATTERSON

HEADNOTE

An intended plaintiff applied for a prohibition order to prevent the intended defendant from leaving Hong Kong :

HELD : A prohibition order was a powerful weapon intended to prevent a plaintiff from being deprived of the fruits of his judgment by those who were, on clear evidence, demonstrably going to use their escape from the jurisdiction as a means of escaping liability for their debts. It is an abuse of process to apply for such an order on evidence which falls short of this standard.

__________

JUDGMENT

__________

1. This is an application for a prohibition order made in an intended action in which Mr. So Po Tong is the intended plaintiff and a Mr. Richard Patterson is the intended defendant.

2. The evidence in support of the application shows that the intended plaintiff claims to be repaid the balance of a sum of HK$490,000. He said this is due to him under an oral agreement which (it is suggested) is evidenced by a piece of paper handwritten and signed by the intended defendant and witnessed by one Mr. Brown. The Affidavit does not condescend to explain any of the circumstances in which the indebtedness arose, other than by reference to this paper. It is a receipt dated 12th May 1987 and reads as follows :-

"I, Richard Patterson, have received HK$490,000 from Mr. So and promise to pay back in four days. This will be put in account no. 88072461 at Citibank in the name of Mr. Greenless."

3. I find the evidence in support of the intended plaintiff's claim thin in the extreme. The intended plaintiff claims to be concerned that the intended defendant is about to leave Hong Kong. The reasons given are as follows :

4. In my judgment, it would be quite wrong to use this powerful weapon to prohibit the freedom of movement of people in and out of Hong Kong on such weak evidence as this. For this reason, I refuse this application. I am particularly concerned that it should have been thought right to make this application weeks after it must have become apparent to the intended plaintiff (if ever it did become apparent to him) that there was a risk of the intended defendant's absconding from Hong Kong. This is an abuse of the procedure laid down by the rules for obtaining prohibition orders, intended, as they are, to prevent a plaintiff from being deprived of the fruits of his judgment by those who are, on clear evidence, demonstratably going to use their escape from the jurisdiction as a means of escaping liability for their debts. Given sufficient evidence, the case might have been different. On the present evidence, I have no hesitation in refusing this application.