XCHRX CHAN HONG JOO AND ANOTHER v. SINO CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

HCMP 1067/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 1067 OF 2000

____________

____________

____________

_____________________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

_____________________________________

1. This is an appeal by the Defendants against the decision of Master Barnes who dismissed the application to set aside the registration of a judgment obtained by the Plaintiffs in the High Court of Singapore.

2. I dismissed the appeal as it is devoid of merits. I now give my reasons.

Plaintiffs' claim

3. The Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants is for the rescission of a sale and purchase agreement of land and premises in Shanghai on the ground of misrepresentation and repayment of a sum of money the Plaintiffs' paid under the provisional agreement.

Chronology

Defendants' grounds for setting aside

4. 1) The Defendants claim that the dispute is in respect of immovable property outside the country of original court.

5. With respect the claim and judgment is not in respect of immovable property. It is in respect of a contract for the sale and purchase of immovable property outside the country of original court. The claim is for payment of money not in respect of immovable property outside jurisdiction.

6. The Defendants' 1st ground must therefore fail.

7. 2) Defendants claim that they were not properly served with the papers either in Singapore or Hong Kong.

8. The Registry of the Singapore Supreme Court had served the notice to both the Defendants' solicitors in Singapore on the 1st Defendant's registered office as to the notice of hearing. It was a regular judgment. The Singapore Court is a court of competent jurisdiction, which has given notice to the Defendants that they were about to proceed to determine the case and had afforded the Defendants the opportunity to present their case. There was no breach of natural justice. Hence S. 6(3)(a) of the Foreign Judgment (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance Cap. 319 does not apply.

9. The Plaintiffs' solicitors did send the Notice of Registration of Foreign Judgment on its registered office on 17 May 2000. In any event under O. 71 r. 2 the registration of the judgment may be made ex parte.

10. In the circumstances the Defendants' 2nd ground must also fail.

11. 3) The Defendants suspected whether the judgment in Singapore dated 26 February 1998 is still "a valid judgment" since it had been granted for over 2 years before registration.

12. It is only the Defendants' suspicion. It does not take the matter any further.

13. 4) The last point the Defendants made is that the Plaintiffs had also started an action in Hong Kong and therefore there has been a duplicity of action.

14. Since the matter has been dealt with by a court of competent foreign jurisdiction, the matter is res judicata and that it is an issue estoppel.

15. The Defendants could not be prejudiced.

16. For reasons above I dismiss the Defendants' appeal with costs to the Plaintiffs.