Typhoon 8 Research Ltd. v. Seapower Resources International Ltd. and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 2980/2001 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 14 November 2002 before Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA, Suffiad J.
Civil law – trust money – lease deposit – liquidation of landlord – tracing – whether liquidators must pay over trust money to tenant – Private International Law – trust monies paid into bank account of company that subsequently goes into liquidation – Court of Appeal – application by plaintiff to join Provisional Liquidators as defendants – whether the deposit paid into the 1st defendant's bank account was trust money under the lease – held, yes, the deposit was trust money, as already determined by the Court of Appeal in its judgment of 30 July 2002 – whether the court should order the sum of HK$426,475 (deposit plus interest) held by the liquidators to be paid to the plaintiff despite the liquidators' contention that the money could not be directly traced – held, yes, the court should order payment – authority applied: Space Investments Limited v CIBC [1986] 1 WLR 1072 (Privy Council), where Lord Templeman made observations on trust monies paid into a bank account – court had ample authority to order payment – 1st defendant was in liquidation and the joint provisional liquidators had set aside HK$426,475 representing the deposit plus interest – the plaintiff, represented by its director Mr Lachlan Christie acting in person, agreed there was no further purpose in pursuing the application to join the Provisional Liquidators as defendants for the present time – the 1st defendant and the Joint Provisional Liquidators were represented by Mr A T Reyes SC, instructed by Messrs Allen & Overy – outcome: order made that HK$426,475 plus any further accrued interest be paid to the plaintiff.
Legal issues: Whether trust money deposited into a now-liquidated company's bank account should be ordered to be paid out to the plaintiff despite the liquidators' claim that the money cannot be directly traced
Outcome: The court ordered the sum of HK$426,475, representing the trust deposit plus interest, together with any further interest accrued, to be paid by the 1st defendant's Joint Provisional Liquidators to the plaintiff. The plaintiff accepted there was no purpose in pursuing the application to join the Provisional Liquidators as defendants for the present time.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACV002980A/2001 CACV 2980/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2980 OF 2001 (ON APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 5911 OF 2001) _______________________
Coram: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Suffiad J in Court Date of Hearing: 14 November 2002 Date of Judgment: 14 November 2002 _________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ Hon Rogers VP: 1.This is an application by the plaintiff which has been made by summons to join the Provisional Liquidators as defendants to this action. This court handed its judgment down in the appeal on 30 July of this year and in that judgment we made it plain that we considered that the deposit which the plaintiff had made in respect of rent was, under the terms of the particular lease, trust money. It had been paid into the bank account of the 1st defendant. 2.The 1st defendant unfortunately is now in liquidation, but the liquidators have set aside a sum of money which is $426,475, which represents the deposit money plus the interest. A question arises as to whether, because the Provisional Liquidators say that the money cannot be directly traced, that money should be ordered to be paid. In my view, it should be so ordered. 3.There is authority which Mr Reyes, on behalf of the liquidators, has drawn to our attention in the Privy Council in the case of Space Investments Limited v CIBC [1986] 1 WLR 1072, which involved a bank which also went into liquidation and the observations of Lord Templeman in relation to trust monies which had been paid into the bank account. In my view, this provides ample authority for this court to make an order that the sum of money of $426,475 plus any further interest which has accrued, which in present circumstances will probably not be very much, should be paid to the plaintiff. 4.In those circumstances Mr Christie, who has appeared again on behalf of the plaintiff, has indicated that he agrees that there is no purpose to be served in pursuing his application to join the Provisional Liquidators as defendants, at any rate for the present time. Therefore this court will make the order that that sum of money should be paid to the plaintiff. Hon LePichon JA: I agree. Hon Suffiad J: I agree with all that the V-P has said in his judgment.
Representation: The Plaintiff/Appellant acting in person, represented by its director Mr Lachlan Christie (present) Mr A T Reyes SC, instructed by Messrs Allen & Overy, for the 1st Defendant and the Joint Provisional Liquidators of the 1st Defendant/Respondents |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 2980/2001