Read the full judgment text of HCA 011186/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 12 July 1996 before Cheung J.
Civil law – enforcement of foreign judgments – whether a PRC judgment is final and conclusive for the purpose of recognition and enforcement in Hong Kong – protest system under the Civil Procedure Law of 1991 – Articles 14, 185 and 187 – supervisory jurisdiction of the Supreme People's Procuratorate – guarantor liability under a 1991 guarantee for debt of Hua Da Decoration & Furniture Co. – judgment of Fujian Intermediate People's Court for US$40,764.78 and US$8,769 – appeal dismissed by Fujian Higher People's Court – subsequent petition by defendant to Fujian People's Procuratorate for retrial – matter referred to Supreme People's Procuratorate to consider lodging a protest – if protest lodged, Article 187 requires the same court to conduct a retrial with power to alter its own decision – protest procedure is not merely an appeal process – judgment not final and unalterable in the court which pronounced it – application of Nouvion v. Freeman – plaintiff's expert agreed judgment was final and conclusive; defendant's expert said final and conclusive for the time being – no protest yet lodged but procedure already invoked – plaintiff suing in Hong Kong on the judgment itself rather than on the underlying guarantee – whether forum non conveniens applies once PRC court has adjudicated – application of Spiliada Maritime and S. Megga Telecommunication – real issue is whether the Chinese judgment is final and conclusive – proceedings stayed pending outcome of Supreme People's Procuratorate decision – leave to plaintiff to apply to remove stay or seek further directions if no decision within six months – separate application to vary Mareva consent order to release stakeholder monies refused because valid PRC judgment still subsists and protest process not concluded – status quo maintained – Mercedes Benz AG v. Leiduck distinguished.
Legal issues: Whether the PRC judgment is final and conclusive for enforcement in Hong Kong · Whether the Hong Kong proceedings should be stayed · Whether the consent order on the Mareva injunction should be varied to release monies held by the Defendant's solicitor as stakeholder
Outcome: Defendant's application to stay the Hong Kong proceedings granted; Plaintiff's action on the PRC judgment stayed pending the decision of the Supreme People's Procuratorate; Defendant's application to vary the consent order in respect of monies held under a Mareva injunction refused.
Cited by 2 cases