Roy Ratna v. Naiki Trading Co

DCCJ14/2007

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14 OF 2007

BETWEEN

Before: H H Judge Mimmie Chan in Chambers (Open to the public)

Date of Hearing: 9 April  2008

Date of Decision: 9 April  2008

D E C I S I O N

1.I do not consider the failure to disclose any alleged unco-operative attitude of the Plaintiff’s solicitors, or any alleged delay in the provision of the letter dated 13 November 2006 to the Defendant or its solicitors is material to the issues which were to be decided by the judge in granting the injunction order on 3 April 2008.

2.I am also not satisfied on the evidence that the Plaintiff had knowledge of the Defendant’s sale of its property by 4 January 2008.  The evidence adduced by the Defendant is that at most, Mr Collins, a partner of the solicitors’ firm who acts for the Plaintiff in this case, at some stage knew of the sale in the course of his acting for another client in another action.  Matters relating to DCCJ5531/2007 are privileged to Mr Collins’ client and he cannot and, on the Plaintiff’s evidence, did not disclose the information which he acquired for the other client to the Plaintiff in this action before the application for the injunction was made on 3 April 2008.  I cannot draw the inference that a solicitor and an officer of the court  would act in breach of his professional duties and disclose to the Plaintiff in this action matters which he is professionally bound to keep confidential for another client.

3.Because the Defendant has paid $226,130.40 into court, the injunction order of 3 April is spent and need not be continued. 

4.On the evidence, I am satisfied that there was sufficient evidence before the learned judge on 3 April 2008 of a risk of dissipation and of the Defendant’s evasion of the Plaintiff or his solicitors to avoid satisfaction of the judgment, and that there was no material non-disclosure.  

5.I will make an order that the costs of the application for the injunction on 3 April including the costs of today be to the Plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.  I do not see any ground to make the order for costs

to be taxed on an indemnity basis.

Mr Gilbert Collins, of Messrs Boase, Cohen & Collins, for the Plaintiff

Mr Sajan G Sujanani, instructed by Messrs Ho & Tam, for the Defendant