Ngai Kwong Suen t/a Boga Trading Co v. Dawin Shipping (Agencies) Ltd and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1486/1985 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 March 1986.
1. In this matter the 1st defendant, Dawin Shipping (Agencies) Ltd., has come before the Court by way of summons asking for an order either that an amount of $96,000 paid into Court be paid out to it or that there be a summary determination of the question at issue by this Court. A third alternative relief was sought in which the 1st defendant asked that, should the relief sought in the first two parts of the application not be granted, the question at issue be stated and tried as soon as possib
|
HCMP001486/1985
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS _____ BETWEEN
_____ Coram: Hon. Power, J. in Chambers Date of hearing: 6 March 1986 Date of delivery of judgment: 6 March 1986 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ 1. In this matter the 1st defendant, Dawin Shipping (Agencies) Ltd., has come before the Court by way of summons asking for an order either that an amount of $96,000 paid into Court be paid out to it or that there be a summary determination of the question at issue by this Court. A third alternative relief was sought in which the 1st defendant asked that, should the relief sought in the first two parts of the application not be granted, the question at issue be stated and tried as soon as possible without further pleadings and subject to a number of directions which were set out. Having heard the parties I order in terms of the third part of the summons amended so that it reads: "That there should be an order for a speedy trial". The directions which are contained in that part are to apply to that trial. The 1st defendant has not succeeded today in obtaining the summary determination of the action which he sought in paras. 1 and 2 of his summons. It was in these parts that the real thrust of today's application lay. The 1st defendant has, it is true, obtained an order for a speedy trial. This has not, however, really advanced the matter as the plaintiff had already undertaken on the 16th January when the matter came before Mr. Justice Penlington that proceedings would go on with all due despatch. It is suggested by Mr. Tong, who appears for the applicant, that nothing of any significance has been done since the 16th January 1986 and, that being so, this application was necessary to ensure that the undertaking would hereafter be complied with. Although an affidavit was filed there is nothing therein which suggests any undue delay on the part of the plaintiff. Indeed it is apparent from what has been said to this Court that certain matters have been proceeded with and that there have been exchanges between the parties since the 16th January. If there has been any breach of the undertaking, then the matter could have been resolved by a simple application asking that the plaintiff comply with the undertaking to proceed with due despatch. There was no need for the compendious application that was made. In the circumstances I am satisfied that the 1st defendant must pay the plaintiff's costs of this application to be taxed. I certify for 2 counsel.
Representation: D. Cheng, Q. C. & Mr. P. Chan (Liu Chan & Lam) for Plaintiff R. Tong (Susan Liang & Co.) for 1st Defendant |