Re Aloha Trading Ltd

HCCW000010/1979

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

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

Coram: Li, J.

Date of Judgment: 15 March 1979

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

DECISION

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

1. Upon hearing counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Cos. and upon reading the affidavit of Chua, Managing Director of Cos., I am inclined to grant leave on motion for an extension of time within which to file an affirmation in opposition to the Petition herein.

2. On the face of it Mr. Chua had not shown reasonable ground as to why he should not be able to file affidavits to oppose in time. The Petitions are set down for hearing on 15th March, 1979 at 9.30 a.m. Notice of the date of hearing was given to the Debtor on 12th February, 1979. No attempt was made, then, to vacate the date of hearing. However, from the contents of the letter written by the Petitioner's solicitors to the Cos., dated 2nd March, 1979 it is apparent that the Cos., indicated that they would oppose the Petitions.

3. On 2nd March, 1979 Mr. Ching was engaged in serious negotiation for the settlement of another case set down for 30 working days with 17 other counsel engaged for various parties. On that day it was not envisaged with any certainty that the long case would be settled. Had that Action not been settled there would have been no prospect of these Petitions being heard today. Eventually the other Action was settled late in the afternoon on 5th March, 1979. Hence the last minute Motion for extension of time and a very brief affidavit in support.

4. I fully appreciate that this may not be sufficient excuse to the last minute Motion of this nature. However, I have to take into consideration of the local conditions where there are not sufficient counsel to cope with the legal work involved. The Managing Director of Cos., affirms to the fact that the Cos., have a genuine dispute and cross claim to oppose the Petition which even on the 2nd March, 1979 had no prospect of being heard on the 15th March, 1979 on its merits. Counsel for the Cos. was deeply involved in another Action at the time. I am inclined to give a wider berth to lay clients in Hong Kong where the delay is due to unavailability of counsel.

5. Reluctant as I am to grant an adjournment I have to consider the prevailing circumstances early in March that but for the settlement of the long case there was little hope of these Petitions being heard until after the beginning of the next legal year. In order to have the Petitions heard on their full merits I shall accede to the Motion for extension of time subject to terms that the Cos. bear the full costs of the adjournment which is so necessitated by granting leave to the Motion.

6. In this connection I also take into consideration that the debts are alleged to be due in the early or mid 1970's. One or 2 months further delay will not unduly prejudice the Petitioner to a great extent if it is granted full costs of the adjournment.

7. Leave to file affirmation in opposition to Petitions Nos. 9 and 10 of 1979 within one month from today. Leave to Petitioners to file affidavit in reply (if necessary) within 2 weeks thereafter. Petitions are adjourned for the purposes to date to be fixed in con-sultation with counsel.

8. Costs of adjournment so required to the Petitioner in any event and that means any costs arising, thrown away, and derived from such adjournment be costs to Petitioner.

9. Leave to Petitioner to appeal.

Representation:

Messrs. Hamilton, Dicks, Poon (H.W. & Glynn) for Petitioner

Messrs. Ching, Q.C., Niamutullah (Helen A. Lo) for Respondent