Concord Property Development Ltd v. Yuen Moon Chuen and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCA 17217/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 November 2005.
1. On the 1 st defendant’s summons, the parties have come to terms with the undertaking given to the court by the plaintiff’s solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff, as has been given to me by Mr. Chan on behalf of the plaintiff namely, an undertaking by the plaintiff that until trial or further order that the plaintiff shall restrain itself, its officers, servants, agents or debt-collecting agents (if any) from using any threatening or unlawful means to collect the amount(s) claimed in this acti
|
HCA 17217/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 17217 OF 1999 BETWEEN
Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers Date of Hearing : 11 November 2005 Date of Decision : 11 November 2005 __________________ D E C I S I O N __________________ 1.On the 1st defendant’s summons, the parties have come to terms with the undertaking given to the court by the plaintiff’s solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff, as has been given to me by Mr. Chan on behalf of the plaintiff namely, an undertaking by the plaintiff that until trial or further order that the plaintiff shall restrain itself, its officers, servants, agents or debt-collecting agents (if any) from using any threatening or unlawful means to collect the amount(s) claimed in this action from the defendants. It is accepted by the 1st defendant that with that undertaking a consent order can be made that the 1st defendant’s summons be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore and that there be liberty to apply generally and in respect of the execution of the above undertaking. The undertaking given by the plaintiff is, of course, without prejudice to the respective contentions to the parties. 2.The only matter in dispute is the question of costs of the 1st defendant’s summons. The 1st defendant asks for costs of the summons. The plaintiff says that costs should be in the cause. 3.I have pointed out to the 1st defendant that no cause of action has been pleaded in the counterclaim of the 1st defendant in respect of the activities of debt-collecting agents employed by the plaintiff and that if he wishes to pursue this matter, he will have to amend his counterclaim to plead this cause of action with the appropriate relief. That has not been done yet. Also, the 1st defendant accepts that his affirmation is devoid of particulars of the wrongful activities complained of. 4.It seems to me, in the circumstances, it is right and proper that the costs should be in the cause. This does not prejudice either party as the costs will be determined eventually, and I order that the costs of the 1st defendant’s summons be costs in the cause.
Mr Alex Chan of Messrs Chui & Lau, solicitors for the Plaintiff The 1st Defendant, in person |