Read the full judgment text of FAMV 000010/1999 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 28 June 1999 before Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ and Mr Justice Bokhary PJ.
1. In permitting Unionix Development Ltd to proceed to seek damages in its action, the Court of Appeal based its decision on its view that Roe Investment Ltd was not entitled to interplead. But was the crucial question whether Roe was entitled to interplead? Or was it whether the effect of the consent order was that Roe's liability to Unionix under the cause of action on which Unionix's action was based had been discharged once Roe had promptly performed the option in conformity with Godfrey JA'
Legal issues: Crucial question on interpleader vs discharge of liability
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal granted to Roe Investment Ltd and the guarantor (Kowloon Development Company Ltd) without limiting the issues which may properly be raised in the appeal.