Wah Nam Holdings Co. Ltd.and Others v. Excel Noble Development Ltd. and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 8974/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 July 1999.

1. The issues raised by Mr. Barlow, counsel for the 1st to 7th Defendants, in my view, require consideration by the Court as soon as possible.

Case No.HCA 8974/1999
Court
High Court CFI
Date12 Jul 1999
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA008974/1999

HCA No. 8974/99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 8974 OF 1999

____________

BETWEEN
WAH NAM HOLDINGS CO. LIMITED 1st Plaintiff
WILLIAM CHAN PAK TO 2nd Plaintiff
WAH HING SECURITIES LIMITED 3rd Plaintiff
AND
EXCEL NOBLE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 1st Defendant
EMPIRE HARVEST DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 2nd Defendant
STAMFORD STAR FINANCE LIMITED 3rd Defendant
UNBEATABLE ASSETS LIMITED 4th Defendant
SAMSON DAVID CHEN 5th Defendant
TERENCE HO PUI TIN 6th Defendant
SOLAR HONEST LIMITED 7th Defendant
WAH NAM GROUP LIMITED 8th Defendant

____________

Coram: The Hon. Madam Justice Yuen in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 12 July 1999

Date of Delivery of Decision: 12 July 1999

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. The issues raised by Mr. Barlow, counsel for the 1st to 7th Defendants, in my view, require consideration by the Court as soon as possible.

2. What Mr. Barlow seeks is a discharge of the injunctions granted by the Court by virtue of either (i) the alleged inability of the Plaintiffs to honour their undertakings given to the Court or (ii) a possible abuse of process if there was a connection between the Plaintiffs' application for the injunctions and the recent resolution on the part of the directors of the 8th Defendant to rescind the convertible notes in question.

3. I have taken into account the fact that there is an EGM of the 8th Defendant in August, and the control of the Company would be affected by the convertibility of these notes into shares. I have also taken into account the fact that as far as the Plaintiffs are concerned, the affirmations of Terence Ho Pui Tin and the affidavit of William Nicholas Giles were served on them in the afternoon of Saturday the 10th July, (at least the affirmation of Terence Ho was served in the afternoon on 10th July,) although I do understand the 8th Defendant's difficulties in that they were only served this morning.

4. However, in my view, if the matters to be considered are to be restricted to the two points that I have referred to, there is no reason why in my view the affidavits in reply or rather the affidavits in opposition on the part of the Plaintiffs and the 8th Defendant could not be provided by say 2:00 p.m. on Thursday the 15th July and I will hear the application on the 16th and 19th July.

(MARIA YUEN)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Miss Priscilla Wong and Miss Ifan Chan instructed by So Keung Yip & Sin for Plaintiffs

Mr. Barrie Barlow instructed by Horvath & Giles for 1st to 7th Defendants

Mr. K.H. Ting of Siao Wen & Leung for 8th Defendant