Read the full judgment text of HCCT000121/1998 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 16 December 1998 before The Hon Mr Justice Findlay.
Civil procedure — Performance bond — Interim injunctions — Arbitration — Stay of proceedings — Costs — Whether injunction restraining payment under a performance bond should be granted without pleadings or evidence of fraud known to the bond issuer — Whether disputes subject to arbitration compel stay of court proceedings — Whether indemnity costs should be awarded for misconceived applications. The plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctions restraining demand and payment under a performance bond issued by the second defendant to the first defendant. The plaintiff later discontinued claims against the second defendant. The court held that injunctions restraining payment under a performance bond require pleading and evidence of fraud known to the issuer; absent such fraud, no injunction should be granted. The court also ordered a stay of proceedings due to the parties' arbitration agreement and the plaintiff's initiation of arbitration proceedings. Costs were awarded to the first defendant on an indemnity basis due to the plaintiff's wholly misconceived applications made on very short notice. The plaintiff's summons was dismissed, injunctions discharged, and stay granted accordingly.
Legal issues: Grant of injunction restraining payment under performance bond · Stay of proceedings in favour of arbitration · Costs on indemnity basis due to plaintiff’s misconceived action
Outcome: Plaintiff’s summons dismissed; interlocutory injunctions discharged; stay of proceedings granted in favour of arbitration; costs awarded to first defendant on an indemnity basis.