Yeo Teo Bok v. Yeung Kai Pun
Read the full judgment text of CACV 20/1984 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment.
1. This is an appeal against the refusal, by the judge in chambers, of a Mareva injunction.
|
CACV000020/1984
BETWEEN
------------------ Coram: Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P, Barker J. A. & Mayo. J. Date of Judgment: 16th March 1984 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ Sir Alan Huggins, V.-P. : 1. This is an appeal against the refusal, by the judge in chambers, of a Mareva injunction. 2. The matter came before him on 31st January this year. He refused the injunction, in part because he was not satisfied that there was any evidence before him that the Defendant was likely to have no assets out of which to pay any judgment which might be given against him. The judge was then faced a few days later with another summons, by which it was apparently sought to have a review of his previous decision and to produce evidence of a concession which had been made, prior to 31st January, to the effect that the only assets of the Defendant within the jurisdiction consisted of the bank account to which the application had related. The learned judge very properly said that it was not open to him to review his decision and to admit fresh evidence. He invited the Appellant to come to this court on appeal from his previous order and to ask this court to admit the further evidence. 3. The Notice of Appeal which in fact was filed does not state a single ground of appeal: it contains only matters of comment. The vital matter - that it was sought to adduce further evidence - was not mentioned at all. We have thought it right to give leave to amend the Notice of Appeal, and counsel for the Respondent has thereupon stated that he no longer opposes the appeal. The judge has said that the absence of this evidence was a factor contributing to his decision and we are satisfied that had he been aware that the assets were the only assets within the jurisdiction, and that there had been a concession to that effect, he would have granted the injunction sought. Mr. Chan has very properly conceded that such an injunction as that which is referred to in terms in the Notice of Appeal should be granted . 4. We therefore allow the appeal and make an order in those terms, upon the undertakings set out in the Notice of Appeal, and we think that the Appellant should pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal. 5. The error in this case may have arisen from an assumption that the judge would take judicial notice of everything which had been before the court in previous interlocutory proceedings in the same action. Practitioners should appreciate that the judge in chambers will look only at such evidence as is placed before him in relation to the current application. If it be desired to refer to a previous affidavit, that affidavit must be bespoken, so that the court and all parties may know what evidence is to be relied upon. If a previous concession be alleged, the party relying upon it should ensure either that the other side will admit that concession or that evidence of the concession is filed. 16th March 1984 Representation: |