STERLING SERVICES LTD. v. TAN KEE CHEANG

HCCL72/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

COMMERCIAL ACTION NO.72 OF 2002

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

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

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

J U D G M E N T

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

1. This is an application ex parte urgently to me, as a duty judge, for a Prohibition Order to prohibit the defendant Tan Kee Cheang from leaving Hong Kong on the basis that he is not going to return.

2. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has a good cause of action, or at least a reasonable cause of action. It is claiming under two guarantees for a very large sum of money in excess of US$4 million.

3. The critical factor of the application is whether in my belief, by reason of these proceedings, the fact that the defendant who has now moved his place of residence or his house from Hong Kong (a place previously at 63 Hill Road, Hong Kong) to a place in Shenzhen would likely result in the judgment which might be given against the defendant being obstructed or delayed. I am not satisfied, on the totality of the evidence presented before me, that this is a case of absconding debtor. The old cases of absconding debtor escaping by mid-night boats to China, although a colourful phrase, does express the essence of the reason for prohibiting someone from leaving Hong Kong.

4. Here we have in the defendant a person who has close connection with Hong Kong. Although like many people recently in Hong Kong, for economic reasons, he might have moved his place of residence from Hong Kong to Shenzhen, China, he, according to paragraph 7 of the affidavit of the plaintiff, commutes to Hong Kong to work for Team Power in Hong Kong on a regular basis. He has a close and continuing connection with Hong Kong and like many people in Hong Kong who regularly travel between Hong Kong and Shenzhen, he may have a place of residence in Shenzhen but he is not, in my view, a person who is likely to abscond from Hong Kong as soon as the proceedings are served on him. He leaves Hong Kong regularly in order to come back to Hong Kong regularly to work in Hong Kong.

5. I am not satisfied that I should grant a Prohibition Order. I therefore decline to grant it.