Ala 2000 S.P.A. v. Advanced Appliance Ltd. and Others

HCA009282/2000

HCA9282/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.9282 OF 2000

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

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

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge Muttrie in Chambers

Dates of Hearing: 3-5 October 2000

Date of Decision: 5 October 2000

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

D E C I S I O N

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

1. On further consideration of the whole position in this case, it seems that I was wrong to hold on 3 October 2000, as I did, that it was appropriate for the plaintiff to proceed ex parte on notice. There is not the kind of urgency here which requires that "not even five minutes warning should be given to the other side". There is quite simply no evidence of some impending incident which needs to be stopped by this means. There is an ongoing process, and the proper way to stop it is by a decision to do so, if appropriate, after hearing inter partes. This being so, I must dismiss the present ex parte application.

[Submissions on costs]

2. I think the point is that this matter should not have come on an ex parte basis because there was insufficient urgency to justify it. The plaintiff must bear the costs, but indemnity costs are not justified. Costs be to the defendants on a party and party basis, in any event.

Representation:

Mr Jeevan Hingorani, instructed by Messrs Barlow Lyde & Gilbert,  for the Plaintiff

Mr Raymund Chow, instructed by Messrs Preston, Gates & Ellis, for the Defendants