Bancom International Ltd v. Collin K.L. Kung
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2175/1977 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The plaintiff claims against the defendant for a sum of $323,504.44. On behalf of the defendant, counsel submitted that whilst indebtednesswas not challenged, the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, by reason of the various transactions listed out in the draft Statement of Claim, ranged between $10,000 and $300,000. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that he had no intention to obstruct or delay execution of the judgment in this action.
|
HCA002175/1977
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT -----------------
----------------- Coram: Mr. Commissioner Liu, Q.C. in Chambers. Date of Judgment: 27th September, 1977 ----------------- DECISION ----------------- 1. The plaintiff claims against the defendant for a sum of $323,504.44. On behalf of the defendant, counsel submitted that whilst indebtednesswas not challenged, the amount due from the defendant to the plaintiff, by reason of the various transactions listed out in the draft Statement of Claim, ranged between $10,000 and $300,000. It was urged on behalf of the defendant that he had no intention to obstruct or delay execution of the judgment in this action. 2. Certain facts are not in dispute for this present application. On the 23rd of August, 1977, a process server Mr. LAU Kwong-ching attended at the defendant's residence. He obtained some information from the wife of the defendant to the effect that the defendant's family were moving to Taiwan with the defendant staying in Hong Kong for a short time to settle his affairs. On this visit, articles were observed by Mr. Lau to have been packed purportedly for transportation to Taiwan. The defendant took his family to Taiwan on the 26th of August 1977, and the defendant himself returned on the 31st of August 1977. It is also common ground that on the 7th of July 1977 a flat owned by the defendant in Scenic Villa was sold by him with the result that he received a net $96,000 which sum, according to the affidavit of the defendant, has been wholly disposed of. 3. The defendant disclosed through his legal advisers that he had no means to meet any substantial bail granted by this Court. However, it was contended on behalf of the defendant that he had shown cause why the should not be called upon to give security for his appearance to answer any judgment that might be given against him in this action. 4. The defendant has taken his family out of Hong Kong, but he stated in his affidavit that he was determined to remain in Hong Kong to settle his affairs. The very fact that he moved his family to Formosa in August and had earlier divested himself of landed property in July at a time when liabilities had been heavily incurred by the principal debtor, for half of which he was responsible, is in my view sufficient cause for believing that the defendant will, if given the opportunity, leave the jurisdiction permanently so that execution of any judgment that may be given against him in this action is likely to be obstructed or delayed. As a matter of fact, the defendant has, on his own admission, disposed of some $96,000.00, the availability or unavailability of which for satisfying such judgment or a part thereof before its disposition has not been accounted for, although there has been some suggestion that these net proceeds of sale were mainly absorbed in moving and settling the defendant's family. Such alleged disposition of fund is, in my view, inconsistent with that of an honest debtor. His return to Hong Kong from Taiwan at the early stage on the 31st August should not be given too much weight. In these circumstances, there is obviously probable cause for believing that the defendant is likely to obstruct or delay, if he has not in the case of the Scenic Villa flat obstructed or delayed, the course of justice. 5. I have arrived at the conclusion that the defendant has not shown cause that why he should not be made to give bail for his appearance to answer the Plaintiff's claim in this action. The defendant has offered to surrender all his travelling documents, and counsel for the plaintiff suggested a sum of $150,000 by way of bail. Whatever figure arrived at by the Court in circumstances such as these must be to a large extent arbitrary. Having been briefed on the circumstances and bearing in mind submissions advanced on behalf of the defendant, I find a bail to the extent of $100,000 as being sufficient. In the circumstances I order (1) Upon the defendant's surrendering all his travelling documents to the Court and giving bail in the sum of $100,000 by himself or by his sureties to the satisfaction of the Registrar, the warrant be discharged, otherwise the warrant to remain in force until further order. I further order costs against the defendant with a certificate for counsel.
Representation: |