Wo Hing Engineering Ltd. and Another v. Hong Kong Construction (Holdings) Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 123/2000 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 27 December 2000 before Hon Chung J in Chambers.
Procedure — Interim stay of execution — Default judgment — Arbitration Ordinance s.6(1) — Stay of proceedings pending arbitration — Jurisdiction — Court discretion. Defendant applied for an interim stay of execution of a default judgment pending a stay application for arbitration to be heard. The writ was issued in November 2000, default judgment entered December 2000, and arbitration stay hearing scheduled for January 2001. The court considered the short stay period would not unduly prejudice the Plaintiffs and there was no risk of undue delay as the court was fully aware of the matter. The court granted an interim stay of execution of judgment until the arbitration stay application hearing date. Orders followed accordingly.
Legal issues: Interim stay of execution of default judgment
Outcome: Interim stay of execution of the default judgment granted until 12 January 2001
Cites 1 case
|
HCCT000123/2000 HCCT 123/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS ____________
____________ Coram: Hon Chung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 27 December 2000 Date of Judgment: 27 December 2000 _______________ J U D G M E N T _______________ 1. This is the Defendant's application in effect for an interim stay of execution of the default judgment entered on 18 December 2000. The relevant history of this action is as follows. 2. The Writ of Summons was issued on 9 November 2000. On 8 December 2000, the Defendant took out an application for stay of this action for arbitration pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Arbitration Ordinance. This will be heard on 12 January 2001. Evidence has now been filed by both parties regarding, among other things, the matter(s) in dispute between the parties which the Defendant contends ought to be left for arbitration. 3. It appears that Burrell J has been well versed with the matters involved in this action. Notwithstanding the Defendant's said application dated 8 December 2000, he directed on 14 December 2000 that:
Although no application to set aside the judgment has yet been taken out, Mr Choi for the Defendant indicates that this would be done tomorrow. 4. It is unclear as to what Burrell J meant when he referred to "no further unnecessary costs should be incurred" but it seems to me that this application is one of the matters he was trying to avoid. Unfortunately, his above remarks failed to prevent the parties from disputing a matter as trivial as the present application. 5. The period of stay involved between today and 12 January 2001 is around 16 days. Despite the arguments of Mr Cheung for the Plaintiff, I do not agree that such a stay should unduly prejudice the Plaintiff. The application pending hearing on 12 January 2001 is related to a matter going to the jurisdiction of the court. As I observed earlier, Burrell J appears to be fully aware of the whole situation and it is therefore unlikely that any attempt to unduly delay these proceedings will go unnoticed. 6. In these circumstances, I consider that an order should be made for there to be an interim stay of execution of the judgment dated 18 December 2000 up to and including 12 January 2001.
Representation: Mr K K Cheung, of Messrs Deacons, for the 1st & 2nd Plaintiffs Mr Joseph Choi, of Messrs Masons, for the Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 123/2000