Liu Xian Feng Sam and Another v. Liu Bo and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 5474/2001 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 24 October 2005.
1. I will allow the insertion of the proposed undertaking for the following reasons: It is in similar terms of the undertaking given by the 1st defendant in dealing with similar expenses in the order of Mr Recorder Wong dated 17 May 2004. These expenses are allowed for a specific purpose: for travelling to and for living expenses in Hong Kong and, more importantly, for retaining mainland lawyers. As a matter of principle, it is in the same vein as the order of Mr Recorder Wong. That the amou
|
HCA5474/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.5474 OF 2001 BETWEEN
---------------------- Before : Deputy High Court Judge Fung in Chambers (Open to the public) Date of Hearing : 24 October 2005 Date of Delivery of Decision : 24 October 2005 ------------------------- D E C I S I O N ------------------------- 1.I will allow the insertion of the proposed undertaking for the following reasons: It is in similar terms of the undertaking given by the 1st defendant in dealing with similar expenses in the order of Mr Recorder Wong dated 17 May 2004. These expenses are allowed for a specific purpose: for travelling to and for living expenses in Hong Kong and, more importantly, for retaining mainland lawyers. As a matter of principle, it is in the same vein as the order of Mr Recorder Wong. That the amount is now smaller does not alter the principle. 2.As a matter of practice, I cannot see the impossibility of the solicitor for the 1st defendant to honour the undertaking because they are for the specific purposes. With those incidents coming up, such as travelling to Hong Kong, staying in Hong Kong, and the engagement of a lawyer in mainland, then the sums can be released. This view is fortified by the lack of difficulty in the honouring the undertaking given before. 3.The only other matter is that the plaintiff did not add this undertaking in the original draft served on the solicitor for the 1st defendant whereby the original draft was already agreed. Be that as it may, I think it would only affect costs of the present application, and not the substance of the matter. 4.Hence, I will allow the insertion of the undertaking. I propose to make no order as to costs on the present hearing, subject to whatever parties have to say further. (Court discussion re costs) 5.I make no order as to costs for today’s hearing.
Mr R. Chan, of Messrs S.K. Wong & Lee, for the 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs Mr Lee Po Wing, of Messrs Paul Kwong & Co., for the 1st Defendant |
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 5474/2001