Techteryx Ltd v. Legacy Trust Company Ltd and Others

HCA 1906/2023

[2024] HKCFI 3627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1906 OF 2023

_____________

_____________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.The Order of the Singapore Court of 14 August 2024 (“SP Order”) is to permanently restrain the Plaintiff in this action from continuing HCA 1906/2023, this action, against the 4^th Defendant named.

2.The SP Order is in personam, made against and binding on the Plaintiff, unless it is set aside by the Singapore Court on its own, or by the SP Court of Appeal on appeal.

3.On the face of the SP Order, the Plaintiff can only discontinue or seek the dismissal of the present action and any action or step taken by it other than to discontinue the action is a breach of the Order. Needless to say, an appeal against the Order does not per se operate as a stay of the Order. There is no evidence before me that Singapore law operates differently.

4.The Plaintiff maintains that notwithstanding the SP Order, it is appropriate for it to seek an adjournment of the 4^th Defendant’s summons for stay of this action, pending appeal against the SP Order, or further order. The 4^th Defendant seeks the immediate dismissal of the Plaintiff’s application for adjournment and determination of its application for stay.

5.This Court is the master of the proceedings before it, and can exercise its case management powers, irrespective of the position taken by the parties.

6.On principles of comity, this Court cannot see why it should condone or assist the Plaintiff or any party to act in breach of a valid and binding order of any court, in the absence of any order for the stay of execution of the SP Order.

7.Hence, I see no good reason to entertain or grant the Plaintiff’s summons to adjourn the 4^th Defendant’s application for a stay of the action, and which is fixed for hearing on 20 December 2024. It should comply with the SP Order and either discontinue the action, or consent to the 4^th Defendant’s application to stay the action to arbitration. If the Plaintiff really has grounds to resist the application for stay, and can show that it is entitled to contest it notwithstanding the SP Order, then it can establish this at the hearing fixed on 20 December 2024. It is not necessary to argue it today.

8.The Plaintiff’s summons is accordingly dismissed, with costs to the 4^th Defendant, on indemnity basis, with Certificate for Counsel.

Mr Laurence Li SC and Mr Sebastian Hughes, instructed by Loeb & Loeb LLP, for the plaintiff

Mr Wing So, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, for the 4^th defendant