Bank of China (Hong Kong) Branch v. Fu Ming Kong Michael and Another

Read the full judgment text of HCA 7769/2000 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 17 August 2005.

1. This is the Defendants’ application for stay of execution of the judgment dated 8 July 2005 pending an appeal against the said judgment to the Court of Appeal.  The said judgment was entered against the Defendants after a 13-day trial in respect of their indebtedness in the region of HK$14 million (and another sum of about $8.8 million by way of interest).

Cited by 14 cases

Case No.HCA 7769/2000
Court
High Court CFI
Date17 Aug 2005
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 7769/2000 &
HCMP 3909/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 7769 OF 2000

and

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 3909 OF 2000

____________

BETWEEN

  BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) BRANCH Plaintiff
  and  
  FU MING KONG MICHAEL 1st Defendant
  FIRST CHINA TRADING LIMITED 2nd Defendant

____________

(Consolidated pursuant to the Order of Master Wong dated 28th September 2001)

Before: Hon Chung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 17 August 2005

Date of Decision: 17 August 2005

_______________

D E C I S I O N

________________

1.This is the Defendants’ application for stay of execution of the judgment dated 8 July 2005 pending an appeal against the said judgment to the Court of Appeal.  The said judgment was entered against the Defendants after a 13-day trial in respect of their indebtedness in the region of HK$14 million (and another sum of about $8.8 million by way of interest).

2.In support of this application, the Defendants have filed an affirmation of the 1st Defendant dated 4 August 2005.  In short, 3 grounds are put forward:

(a) the Defendants’ appeal is meritorious and will most likely succeed;
   
(b) the property mortgaged to the Plaintiff has a market value of well over $15 million.  There is also a rising property market.  The Plaintiff is said to be not prejudiced by a delay in the sale of the property.  On the other hand, if the property is sold by way of a forced sale, it is unlikely a reasonable price can be obtained;
   
(c) it is unlikely the Defendants can find a similar alternative property in the same building or in the vicinity if the property is sold.

3.The Plaintiff has helpfully provided a comprehensive skeleton submission to oppose this application.  I entirely agree with it and will not repeat the points made therein.

4.Accordingly, I conclude that the grounds relied upon by the Defendants are inadequate to justify this application.  It is therefore dismissed.

  (Andrew Chung)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Ms Mabel Kwan of Messrs Gallant Y T Ho & Co, for the Plaintiff

Mr John Ku of Messrs John Ku & Co, for the Defendants