Read the full judgment text of HCCT120/1997 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 14 June 2001 before Hon Burrell J in Chambers.
Construction Law — Order 26, rule 3(2); Order 29, rule 2 — Interrogatories and interim preservation of funds — Contractual chain dispute — Payment disputes involving reserved money account — Jurisdiction to order preservation — Prematurity and practicality of interrogatories — The plaintiff, an air-conditioning subcontractor, claims direct contractual relationship with the 1st defendant main contractor, who contends that the plaintiff is subcontracted via the 2nd defendant. Two summonses were heard: the 1st defendant applied to withdraw interrogatories seeking financial information; the plaintiff applied for interim preservation of funds held in a reserved account by the 1st defendant. The court held that the interrogatories were neither premature nor impossible to answer and refused the withdrawal. Regarding the interim preservation, the court found the money to be in an active bank account, not fitting the statutory description of property for preservation, and emphasized the dispute over the contractual chain and the 1st defendant’s financial liability to the employer. Accordingly, the application for preservation was dismissed. Costs were awarded accordingly.
Legal issues: Withdrawal of interrogatories · Interim preservation of funds
Outcome: The summons to withdraw interrogatories was refused with costs to the plaintiff; the summons for interim preservation of funds was dismissed with costs to the 1st defendant.