BabelCite

Jademan (Holdings) Ltd and Others v. Tony Wong Chun Loong and Others

Read the full judgment text of CACV 79/1990 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 June 1990.

1. This is an appeal from the decision of Jones, J., of the 11th May this year, whereby he declined to entertain an application by the 1st Defendant to vary orders which he had continued on the 10th April, the orders having originally been made by Barnes, J., in February this year. One of the variations requested below has been overtaken by events. All that is live now is a variation to allow the 1st Defendant to engage Price Waterhouse to sort out a number of documents in order to comply with t

Case No.CACV 79/1990
Court
Court of Appeal
Date08 Jun 1990
Judge—
Case Document
100%Judiciary

CACV000079/1990

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 1990, No. 79
(Civil)

BETWEEN

1)

 JADEMAN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (SUING ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF ALL ITS SUBSIDIARIES SAVE THOSE NAMED AS CO-PLAINTIFFS HEREIN)

Plaintiffs
(Respondents)

2)

 YELLOW WING LIMITED

3)

 TAYU LIMITED

4)

 EMPIRE PRINTING LIMITED

5)

 SHARP GRAPHIC ART LIMITED
6) JADEMAN ENTERPRISES LIMITED
7) FAMOUS PHOTOTYPESETTING LIMITED

AND
1) TONY WONG CHUN LOONG (MALE)

Defendants
2) PATRICIA WONG MIU LING (FEMALE)

(Appellants)
3) YIN SHIU YEE (FEMALE)
4) THRAKI LIMITED
5) MONTHWAY LIMITED
6) KARAMBER COMPANY LIMITED
7) ALAN & ERIC FILMS LIMITED
8) VOLOS LIMITED
9) NEW TIME MUSICAL WORLD LIMITED
10) JADEMAN TRADING LIMITED
11) GRANT INVESTMENTS LIMITED
12) THE ADVENTURE MAGAZINE LIMITED

-----------

Coram: Hon. Sir Derek Cons, V.P., Kempster, J.A. & Sears, J.

Date of hearing: 8 June 1990

Date of delivery of judgment: 8 June 1990

------------------

JUDGMENT

------------------

Sir Derek Cons, V.P.:

1. This is an appeal from the decision of Jones, J., of the 11th May this year, whereby he declined to entertain an application by the 1st Defendant to vary orders which he had continued on the 10th April, the orders having originally been made by Barnes, J., in February this year. One of the variations requested below has been overtaken by events. All that is live now is a variation to allow the 1st Defendant to engage Price Waterhouse to sort out a number of documents in order to comply with the discovery aspect of the orders in question.

2. The background of the case is fully dealt with in our judgment in Appeal No. 71 of 1990, which we gave this morning. That judgment also contains our view of the law.

3. In his own judgment Jones, J., appears at one stage to have taken the same view as we do, but having regard to what he says at the conclusion of his judgment (p. 160 of the Appeal Bundle) it seems to me that he in fact maintains the same position that he took earlier and which we respectfully take to be incorrect. Thus he makes the same mistake as he did before. He failed to exercise his discretion whether to entertain the application or not.

4. In that circumstance it is for this Court to do so. For my part, having regard to the situation in which Mr. Wong found himself, I think it right that the application should be entertained and dealt with on its merits. I would therefore make a similar order to that we made in the earlier appeal this morning allowing the appeal in part and remitting the proceedings back to the judge below to determine whether or not there should be a variation, and if so, the extent thereof.

Kempster, J.A.:

5. I agree.

Sears, J.:

6. I agree.

(Sir Derek Cons)
Vice President		 (M.E.I. Kempster)
Justice of Appeal		 (R.A.W. Sears)
Judge of the High Court

Representation:

Michael Thomas, Q.C., and Miss Susan Kwan (M/s. Richards Butler) for the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

Robert Tang, Q.C., Winston Poon, Louis Chan and Barnabas Fung (M/s. Sammy S. Li & Co.) for the Defendants/Appellants.