MACAU FIRST UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DING XIAOHONG AND OTHERS

HCA992/2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

NO 992 OF 2010

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  This is an application by DG and MF (“DG’s Camp”) to enforce an undertaking as to damages (“the undertaking”) given when the court granted a receivership order. DY and DXH have been served at their last known address but did not appear. DXH was detained in Mainland China and the application did not really concern her. I thus proceeded in their absence. Subsequent to the hearing, LCP confirmed that HKF would take a neutral stance in the application.

2.  The receivership order was made on 10 March 2011 upon DY’s undertaking:

“to abide by any order this Court may make as to damages if the Court later finds that this Order has caused loss to Ding Gang personally and/or Macau First Universal International Limited … (ie the Plaintiff by original action and the 2^nd Defendant by counterclaim) and/or Hong Kong First Mainland Company Limited … (the 3^rd Defendant by original action) … and decides that it or they should be compensated for that loss…”

3.  Pursuant to my order to fortify that undertaking, DY paid the first tranche of $6.4 million into court.  The Court of Appeal discharged the receivership order, so the 2^nd tranche of $3.6m was not paid in by DY.

4.  After trial, DG’s camp got judgment in their favour on 20 August 2014 (“the Judgment”).

5.  The receivers’ costs have been taxed and allowed by Master J Wong in the sum of $14,721,513.  The $6.4 million was paid out on 19 April 2016 to partially satisfy the costs due to the receivers.  The balance of $8,321,513 will be paid, by order, by MF and HKF to the receivers, as to $4,150,000 on 19 June 2016 and as to $4,171,513 on 19 August 2016 respectively.

6.  DG’s camp seeks an order for DY to make up the difference between the Receivers’ taxed costs and the sum paid into court by DY.

7.  DY has not put forth any ground in opposition to the present application.  Although he has launched an appeal against the Judgment, the appeal has not proceeded in the last 21 months.  The application is justly taken out.  The costs to the receivers represented the damage suffered by DG’s camp and HKF as a result of the Receivership Order and DG’s camp should be compensated for that loss.

8.  I therefore order DY to indemnify DG’s camp pursuant to the undertaking given by DY under the receivership order dated 10 March 2011 by paying to the plaintiff:

(i)   $4,150,000 on or before 19 June 2016;

(ii)   $4,171,513 on or before 19 August 2016.

9.  Costs shall follow the event and be to the plaintiff, summarily assessed and allowed at $40,000.