MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS CREDIT COMPANY LLC v. KEMAL UZAN AND OTHERS

HCA 2232/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 2232 OF 2013

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against an order made by Master K Lo on 23 December 2013. Master Lo extended the time for the 8th to 12th defendants to file their defence from 30 December 2013 to 10 February 2014. The plaintiff wishes to have that order set aside and replaced by an order requiring these defendants to file their defence by 28th January 2014.

2. This appeal, in relation to the 10th defendant, is academic, because she has already filed a defence.  Regarding the other defendants, they oppose this application. 

3. The main ground of the appeal by the plaintiff is that the 8th to 12th defendants are merely nominees holding assets for the main defendants, who are the 1st to the 7th defendants and judgments have been given in the UK and the United States against these defendants.  These defendants are known criminals and fugitives and, hence, the defence of the 8th to 12th defendants should be a simple one for the fact that they are merely nominees of the main defendants.

4. However, Mr Wu, counsel for the 8th to 12th defendants, submits that these defendants, save the 10th, need time to consider whether the accusation made by the plaintiff against the main defendants are true, whether the proceedings in the United Kingdom and in the United States were properly and validly constituted and conducted, whether the United Kingdom and United States judgments were properly obtained, whether the plaintiff is entitled to institute the present proceedings in Hong Kong, and whether the United Kingdom and United States judgments are registrable and enforceable in Hong Kong.  Mr Wu submits that the defendants are therefore entitled to the time as allowed by Master Lo and this court should not cut it short by reducing it to 28 January, which is just about two weeks from the time as extended.

5. I must also mention that the plaintiff has already obtained a Mareva injunction against the 8th to 12th defendants.

6. Mr Westbrook, senior counsel for the plaintiff, also submitted that these defendants should have had more than enough time to consider their position because all the evidence and the foreign judgments and their appeals have been served on these defendants about two months ago.

7. Having considered the matter in the round, I think I would not accede to the appeal, because the result is only a difference of two weeks and, in the light of the existence of the Mareva injunction, I do not think the extra two weeks would really put the plaintiff to any prejudice. I also think there are merits in Mr Wu’s submissions that despite judgments having been given in the United Kingdom and the United States, these so-called nominee defendants are still entitled to scrutinise how these judgments were obtained and to consider whether these judgments are enforceable in Hong Kong or whether there is any reason that these proceedings can be defeated.

8. I therefore dismiss the appeal with costs to the 8th to 12th defendants and I also order that these costs be summarily assessed by me. 

9. I therefore direct the 8th to 12th defendants to file a draft bill of costs within the next 14 days and the plaintiff to file and serve its list of objections, if any, within the next 14 days.  I will then proceed to assess the costs on paper without any further hearing unless I ask for one.