Zimmer Rohde Srl v. Rockson International Trading Co Ltd

Read the full judgment text of HCA 599/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 8 July 2022.

1. This is the Plaintiff’s application by way of summons dated 28 June 2022 for an order that:

Case No.HCA 599/2022[2022] HKCFI 2101
Court
High Court CFI
Date08 Jul 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 599/2022

[2022] HKCFI 2101

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 599 OF 2022

________________________

BETWEEN

  ZIMMER ROHDE SRL Plaintiff
  and  
  ROCKSON INTERNATIONAL TRADING CO., LIMITED Defendant

________________________

Before:  Mr Recorder Manzoni SC in Chambers

Date of Hearing:  8 July 2022

Date of Decision:  8 July 2022

________________________

DECISION

________________________


1.This is the Plaintiff’s application by way of summons dated 28 June 2022 for an order that:

(1)  The Propriety Injunction and Mareva Injunction Order granted by the Honourable Mr Justice Harris on 19 May 2022 (as amended and continued until further order of the Court or the conclusion of trial of these proceedings by the Honourable Madam Justice Lisa Wong on 27 May 2022)  be discharged;

(2)  This Action against the Defendant be discontinued; and

(3)  There be no order as to costs, including any costs incidental to the Summonses dated 20 May 2022, 23 May 2022 and this application.

2.It is clear from the evidence that the defendant has taken no part in this action, which concerns an alleged email fraud which are unfortunately familiar to these courts.  The Plaintiff in this case has been somewhat successful in recovering approximately 60% of the amount that it was persuaded to pay out initially.  It seeks now to discharge the injunctions obtained and to discontinue the action, with no order as to costs, on the basis that a continuation of the action is not commercially viable given that it has recovered significant sums, and there may be little prospect of recovering more.

3.To make these orders requires an exercise of the discretion of the court.

4.Having considered the evidence and having regard to what I have set out above, I am satisfied that it is appropriate for the court to make the orders sought.  Hence, I make an order in terms of the draft which has been produced by the Plaintiff.

(Charles Manzoni SC)
Recorder of the High Court

Mr Mark Andrew West of Reed Smith Richards Butler LLP, for the Plaintiff

The Defendant in person being absent