Otc International Ag v. Perfect Recovery Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of HCCL 11/2007 on BabelCite. This HCCL judgment was delivered on 19 June 2008.
1. This is a forum non conveniens application.
Cites 1 case
|
HCCL 11/2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE COMMERCIAL ACTION NO. 11 OF 2007 ------------------------- BETWEEN
---------------------- Before : Hon Stone J in Chambers (Open to public) Dates of Hearing : 22 January and 10 June 2008 Date of Judgment : 19 June 2008 ------------------------- J U D G M E N T ------------------------- The application 1.This is a forum non conveniens application. 2.By summons dated 17 July 2007 the 1st defendant moves for an order that all further proceedings in this action be stayed. 3.Whilst this does not appear on the face of the summons, Mr Beresford, counsel of the 1st defendant, has informed the court that the applicant’s case is that the Federal Republic of Germany is clearly or distinctly more appropriate for the trial of this action, and that for this purpose the 1st defendant undertakes to submit to the Regional Court of Munich or the Regional Court of Coburg. This action 4.The plaintiff, OTC International AG, is a German company. 5.The Points of Claim that have been filed state that it is principally engaged in trading, but the manner in which this case has been argued tends to indicate that in this instance, at least, it fulfilled the function of making available financing for the 1st defendant. 6.The 1st defendant, now known as Perfect Recovery Ltd, but formerly as NICI Asia Ltd, is incorporated in Hong Kong. It is and was a subsidiary of a German company, one NICI AG, which carries on the business of manufacturing and distributing products under the trade name of ‘NICI’. 7.The 2nd defendant, now known as ‘NICI Asia Ltd’, is another Hong Kong company. 8.Until 26 October 2006 the 2nd defendant was a subsidiary of the 1st defendant. However, on that date the 1st defendant sold its shares in the 2nd defendant to an entity known as ‘Strategic Value Partners’. 9.On 27 October 2006 the 1st defendant advertised notice of this transfer in the Hong Kong Government Gazette, and in the English and Chinese press. 10.On 23 April 2007 a proposed Scheme of Arrangement document between the 1st defendant and its creditors was issued, and on 29 May 2007 Kwan J sanctioned this Scheme of Arrangement, to which the plaintiff was not a party nor otherwise was privy. 11.The essence of the present litigation is the unravelling of the commercial relationship between the plaintiff, the 1st defendant, and Nici AG, which on 16 May 2006 filed for bankruptcy in Germany, with an ‘Insolvency Administrator’, Dr Jaffe, being appointed to that position on 1 August 2006 by the court in Coburg. 12.There is a profusion of detail in this case, and there is little merit in burdening this judgment with such detail. At bottom, however, the outline of the plaintiff’s case clearly is discernible. 13.In broad terms the plaintiff says that it provided the finances to enable the 1st defendant to manufacture soft toys and mascots, which then would be onsold (at a markup and with an agreed 5% percentage on the gross) by the plaintiff to the German parent, the plaintiff being repaid out of the monies so generated. 14.To this end, the plaintiff says that currently it is owed a sum of money by the 1st defendant slightly in excess of Eur 5.4 million, and in the separate amount of Eur 270,000, which sums respectively are pleaded as the value of goods undelivered, notwithstanding pre-payment to the 1st defendant in the total sum of Eur 9.5 million under an alleged Supply Agreement, plus the 5% premium as should have been received on this sum of Eur 5.4 million, alternatively the sum of Eur 5.4 million is pleaded as money had and received by the 1st defendant, this being the balance of the pre-paid deposit of Eur 9.5 million the consideration for which having wholly failed. 15.So far as the 1st defendant is concerned, however, the existence of the commercial arrangement as thus characterised by the plaintiff is disputed root and branch. 16.In essence it is said that whilst there were a number of written (and oral) agreements between the parties that appeared to reflect a bona fide tripartite commercial arrangement between the plaintiff, the German parent, NICI AG, and its Hong Kong subsidiary, the 1st defendant NICI Asia, and whilst it also is common ground that the 1st defendant’s role was procurement of the manufacture of goods in the PRC, nevertheless the formation, validity, effect and discharge of these alleged agreements are all matters which are strongly disputed. 17.The 1st defendant points out, for example, that on 4 October 2005 the plaintiff made four transfers to NICI AG in aggregate of Eur 9.5 million, but that on 28 February 2006, at NICI AG’s request, the plaintiff had signed an audit confirmation stating that the plaintiff’s books reflected a credit balance in favour of NiciAG of Eur 4,278,039.61. 18.It is further alleged that this fact is consistent (or not inconsistent) with the assertion of Mr Pfaff – who has given a statement to Dr Jaffe, the liquidator of NICI AG – that the sum of Eur 9.5 million, the pre-payment of which forms the factual bedrock of the plaintiff’s present claim, actually represented repayment by the plaintiff of amounts that earlier had been paid by NICI AG to the plaintiff. 19.Moreover, this allegation is said to be consistent with a note prepared on 30 May 2006 by a Mr H Lindner and a Mrs Tanja Bauer, former in-house accountants at NICI AG who described therein the practice of making back-and-forth payments between OTC, the plaintiff herein, and NICI AG, and who stated that it was common practice for payments to be made by NICI AG to the plaintiff on 30 September (the plaintiff’s balance sheet date) and for the plaintiff to repay these sums at the beginning of October. Thus, it is said by these in-house accountants that, on the instructions of Mr Pfaff, on 30 September 2005 NICI AG drew 6 cheques for Eur 8,995,131.46 in aggregate in favour of the plaintiff, and the repayment thereof was effected by the plaintiff at the beginning of October 2005, and was composed of 4 payments aggregating Eur 9.5 million which sum, although expressed to be “on account NICI Asia” (that is, the 1st defendant), never was required by the plaintiff to be recorded or settled as an ‘on account’ payment to the 1st defendant, and in fact this sum was not forwarded by NICI AG to the 1st defendant. 20.On 16 May 2006, NICI AG filed insolvency proceedings in Germany arising out of the fraudulent inflation, by Mr Ottmar Pfaff, the former CEO and majority shareholder of NICI AG, and a director of the 1st defendant from 12 April 2003 until 29 May 2006. 21.In essence, therefore, it is said that the alleged relationship between the plaintiff, NICI AG and the 1st defendant basically was a ‘cosmetic sham’, in this regard the 1st defendant pointing to the fact that in Germany Mr Pfaff has been convicted of overstating NICI AG’s sales figures in order to generate liquidity to cover operating expenses, and that he is now in prison in Germany, having been sentenced to 6.5 years. 22.It is common ground that the agreements which are in issue and the legal effect of which now is disputed – the December 2003 agreement, the December 2004 agreement, the January 2005 Amendment Agreement, together with certain alleged oral agreements, all were negotiated, purportedly concluded, and written in German in Germany, and were executed between Mr Pfaff on behalf of NICI AG and the 1st defendant, and Mr Bischoff on behalf of the plaintiff. 23.It further is alleged by the 1st defendant, without prejudice to the German liquidators’/auditors’ ongoing investigation, that even if, as the plaintiff maintains and which is denied, the payment of Eur 9.5 million (of which the last tranche of Eur 5 million was sent to NICI AC ‘for the amount of’ the 1st defendant) was a ‘down-payment’ pursuant to the 2004 ‘Supply Agreement’, the 1st defendant still has a net cross claim of Eur 1.5 million, and that in any event the plaintiff’s claim should be limited to a claim in the German insolvency of NICI AG. 24.There is some pre-litigation inter-solicitor correspondence, which for current purposes I see no need to delve into, and which does not serve to advance the argument as now placed before this court. 25.The only other factual aspect worthy of note is that Mr Pfaff, currently languishing in prison in Germany in the Hof Prison facility, appears to have made a statement to Dr Jaffe, the court-appointed bankruptcy administrator, in an interview on 16 August 2006, the content of which, as contained in a document intituled ‘Protocol of Evidence’, wherein he expands on the various transactions conducted by NICI AG with the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, and wherein he says that the method of charging through the medium of the plaintiff for the goods to be manufactured and delivered to the German parent – which always were physically delivered direct from NICI Asia to NICI AG – was an arrangement which took place primarily “to make the group’s revenues appear better”, and that the plaintiff did not provide any services apart from the accounting model which led to the revenue increase for the NICI Group, whilst the mark up in favour of the plaintiff was the price paid for the “beautification” of the group’s revenues. 26.Finally, in terms of relevant chronology, on 12 October 2006 Dr Jaffe had served the plaintiff with notice of the non-fulfillment and termination of the various different versions of the co-operation agreement and the logistic agreement with the plaintiff as had been found in Mr Pfaff’s possession. 27.As to the hotly disputed view of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as to the correct factual matrix, obviously this court takes no view on the truth of that which variously is alleged; that must be a matter for trial. 28.The nub of the present argument, however, is where such trial is going to take place – hence the present application on the part of the 1st defendant for a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens. The argument 29.Given the lately-perceived necessity to file evidence as to German law – which in the event in matters of substance has not proved controversial – the hearing of this application took place in two sessions in January and June 2008. 30.The sole difference between the two hearings was that on the first occasion the 2nd defendant then was unrepresented save by its solicitor, who held a ‘watching brief’ and no more; on the second occasion, however, the 2nd defendant was represented by counsel, Mr William Wong, who made helpful submissions as to the position of his client, submissions with which I deal later in this judgment. 31.So far as the main protagonists to this application are concerned, however, their positions are consistent. 32.In moving the application for the stay of proceedings on behalf of the 1st defendant, Mr Roger Beresford, who as usual has filed a useful and detailed skeleton argument, maintained that this was a case which properly came within the “clearly and distinctly more appropriate” rubric, stressing that the 1st defendant would submit to another court of competent jurisdiction, whether it be the Regional Court of Munich or Coburg; in this connection he highlighted the fundamentally ‘Germanic nature’ of this case, not least since now the German parent – which had been the recipient of at least part of the sum of Euro 9.5 million – was in liquidation, and that the liquidators and auditors had had access to all the relevant books and records required for the evaluation of the plaintiff’s argument. 33.For the plaintiff/respondent to this application, Mr Maurellet also produced an interesting and illuminating written argument. His central thesis was that on all the facts of this case there was nothing sufficiently compelling to change the basic approach in ‘pure’ forum non conveniens cases that in instances in which jurisdiction had been founded as of right, as in the present case, wherein the 1st defendant is a Hong Kong company, a strong element must be present in order to persuade the court to change the jurisdiction in favour of a foreign tribunal. 34.He also pointed out that there was a certain irony, if not tactical manoeuvring in this case, since immediately before this action was commenced the solicitors for the 1st defendant, Messrs Deacons, had been asked by letter dated 31 May 2007 from the solicitors for the plaintiff, Messrs White & Case, if they, Deacons, had instructions to accept service of proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff in Hong Kong since the plaintiff allegedly was a debtor of the 1st defendant – and yet now the position is reversed, and after issuance of the plaintiff’s action against the 1st defendant, their position now is that the action should be transferred to Germany. 35.Mr Maurellet also pointed out that the 1st defendant itself had initiated a Scheme of Arrangement with its creditors under the jurisdiction and supervision of the Hong Kong court, and that the only real issue in these proceedings, he maintained, was in effect the straightforward taking of an account between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant: in a nutshell, how much money had been received by the 1st defendant from the plaintiff, even though some of these monies admittedly had gone through NICI AG upon an “acto D1” basis. 36.Given that the 1st defendant is being controlled by a liquidator, he said, who had no personal or direct knowledge whatever of these matters, it was difficult to see why this litigation now should be sent to Germany, whether it be the court in Munich or Coburg. 37.In this connection Mr Maurellet noted that whilst the 1st defendant had produced a ‘parade’ of potential witnesses the better to substantiate its claim for a stay, on closer inspection very few of these had first hand knowledge of the events the subject of this dispute, and most only had a connection with these proceedings after the events in question, either qua lawyer or insolvency professional. 38.Moreover, he continued, there clearly were no major areas of disagreement between the German law experts, save in so far as the jurisdiction of the German courts over the 2nd defendant was concerned, and if and in so far as the plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd defendant was as separate and discrete as the 2nd defendant claimed it to be, this difference of opinion ought not to matter. 39.Accordingly, Mr Maurellet concluded that there was no good reason established by the 1st defendant – which of course bore the burden in this regard – which should persuade the court to accede to its present fnc application. 40.As for the position of the 2nd defendant, on behalf of that party Mr Wong made it clear that the claim as currently mounted against the 2nd defendant by the plaintiff was both contingent and discrete, and depended upon a pure point of law, namely the correct construction and interpretation of the Transfer of Business (Protection of Creditors) Ordinance, Cap 49. 41.It was the 2nd defendant’s case, said Mr Wong, to be fully pleaded in due course, that legal proceedings against it had not been issued by the plaintiff before the notice of transfer had become complete under the section 3 of the Ordinance; and, if this was correct – and this issue was more than capable of being dealt with in short compass by the Commercial Court, a full trial clearly not being required – even if ultimately it should transpire that the 1st defendant is liable to the plaintiff, no such liability accrued to the 2nd defendant. 42.Thus, in terms of this application for a stay of these proceedings in favour of Germany, the 2nd defendant remained determinedly neutral, and it did not matter to the 2nd defendant whether the plaintiff’s claims in this action were to be litigated in Hong Kong or in Germany. Applicable principle 43.In the circumstances, there is no necessity to rehearse in detail the principles applicable to applications of this nature: they have been well-documented in earlier decisions of this court, and there is, I think, no dispute between counsel on the point. 44.Suffice to say that at bottom the relevant question is “whether there is some other available forum having competent jurisdiction which is the appropriate forum for the trial of this action, that is, in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice.” 45.In The ‘Adhiguna Meranti’ [1987] HKLR 904, at 907E, the Court of Appeal laid down a three-stage process, the first stage being whether it had been shown not only that Hong Kong was not the appropriate forum but also that the appropriate forum sought was “clearly or distinctly more appropriate” on the particular facts. 46.As Hunter JA expressed the position in that case, the evidential burden is on the applicant, and the emphasis is on ‘appropriate’ rather than ‘convenient’ because it is not simply a matter of practical convenience, and the purpose is to identify the forum “with which the action has the most real and substantial connection”, which was the rubric adopted by Lord Keith in The Abidin Daver [1984] AC 398. 47.Once that forum is identified, the consequential question is whether trial at this alternative forum deprives the plaintiff of any juridical advantage(s), with the evidential burden here being on the plaintiff; if so, the court has to perform a balancing act between the advantage of the alternative forum against any such alleged loss of juridical advantage. 48.At the end of the day, therefore, the court hearing the application has to put everything into the discretionary ‘mix’, although if the applicant fails to hit the primary ‘clearly or distinctly more appropriate’ benchmark for the proposed foreign forum, that is the end of the matter, and the case remains to be tried in Hong Kong: see, for example, Naftomar Shipping and Trading Co. Ltd v. Guangdong Development Bank, unrep., judgment dated 20 March 2000, in which this court found that this initial hurdle had not been surmounted. Decision 49.This application is not straightforward, and I have reflected upon the competing arguments, which, if I may say so, have been well marshalled and delivered by the advocates on each side. 50.It is tolerably well known that in general the Commercial Court is not enamoured of forum non conveniens applications, and that it has always struck this court that litigation founded as of right in Hong Kong is deserving of being allowed to run its course unless strong reasons are established in favour of disturbing the norm; as Mr Maurellet correctly opined, jurisdiction thus established as of right against a Hong Kong company “could and should not easily be displaced”, and I accept his observation that the fact that the 1st defendant is incorporated here, and hitherto maintained a significant presence in the territory at the times material to this claim (in the form of approximately 80 employees, I am told) serves to demonstrate that the 1st defendant implicitly was prepared to assume the risk of litigation mounted against it in Hong Kong. 51.I have reviewed the circumstances of this case as presented in the substantial affidavit evidence filed on both sides. 52.In my view Mr Beresford is correct in emphasizing that which he broadly termed ‘the German connecting factors’, in that this case involves a German company suing upon a contract – the 2004 Supply Agreement, in particular – entered into in Germany, and as to which the putative proper law almost certainly is German, and with regard to which dispute there was a plethora of German witness. 53.In itself, however, this is not necessarily enough to get him home, even if the liquidators of NICI AG, and the auditors within that bankruptcy procedure, more conveniently can give evidence in Munich or Coburg than in Hong Kong, and not least when also one considers – as Mr Beresford was constrained to point out – that the working papers in the auditing ‘paper trail’, which sounds to the issue of tracking the monies passing in both directions between the plaintiff to NICI AG in what appears to have been a sort of ‘running account’, is couched in German. 54.Nor is the issue of German law an insurmountable problem to this action continuing in Hong Kong. There is no evidence to suggest that in its significant aspects, such as repayment of monies advanced, that German law is any different to Hong Kong law, and in any event, as Recorder Ma (as he then was) remarked in Rambas Marketing Co. LLC v. Chow Kam Fai, David [2001] 3 HKC 250, at 266H:
55.True to fashion in this type of application, each side duly has trotted out lists of witnesses who are abroad, but in truth, with the world now being essentially a global marketplace, this element is of far less weight than it may have been, say, twenty years ago, although even then the courts were resistant in according to this category undue weight in the balancing process which these applications inevitably require. 56.At the end of the day, however, there are two distinct matters which cause me concern were this case to remain in Hong Kong. 57.The first, and perhaps the predominant concern, is the current incarceration in Germany of Mr Pfaff. 58.It strikes me that the evidence of this gentleman holds the key to unlocking the currently extremely murky picture surrounding the tripartite dealings between the plaintiff, NICI AG and the 1st defendant, NICI Asia. For example, Dr Jaffe, who is conducting the NICI AG liquidation in Germany, says that Mr Pfaff does not confirm the plaintiff’s version of events, Mr Pfaff stating in interview that the plaintiff, NICI AG and other firms would produce invoices without underlying delivery of goods or purchase orders, and that such invoices would be sold to a factoring company in order to generate liquidity; he is also said to have said that the plaintiff provided no service(s) for its 5% cut, and, as earlier noted, that the handling ‘mark up’ for these goods represented the price for the “beautification” of the NICI Group’s revenues. 59.In fact, in the circumstances of this case I would go further. Absent the testimony of Mr Pfaff, the former Managing Director of NICI AG, and the person with whom the relevant officers of plaintiff obviously dealt at the times material to this claim, I doubt whether any court, be it the Hong Kong court or a German Regional court, fairly could essay an informed view as to the rectitude of the claims of the plaintiff, and the alleged cross-claim of the 1st defendant arising out of their commercial dealings. 60.In the context of Mr Pfaff’s obvious evidentiary significance, I am told by Mr Beresford – and this also is accepted by Mr Maurellet – that if this action is removed for trial to Germany, then Mr Pfaff will be a compellable witness in Germany, and will, or may be, examined on his evidence by the trial judge. 61.However, as Mr Beresford noted, should this case remain in Hong Kong, Mr Pfaff obviously is not compellable; indeed, given his present unfortunate situation, the best that could be hoped for is that some form of ‘video link’ could be established between the Hof prison facility and the Hong Kong Technology Court. 62.Putting aside the suggestion put forward in the expert evidence filed on behalf of the 1st defendant to the effect that such a ‘video link’ would constitute, or may be regarded as constituting, an infringement upon German sovereignty – a suggestion which strikes me as forced at best and as nonsense at worst – clearly it is necessary to obtain direct evidence from Mr Pfaff in order properly to judge this case, although whether this evidence ultimately is believed will depend upon the tribunal’s evaluation of the credibility of this gentleman, taken together with the surrounding evidence, including the auditors’ report(s). And, equally clearly, such direct evidence very well may not be forthcoming or made available to the court if and in so far as the trial of this action were to take place in Hong Kong. 63.The second principal concern this court entertained about the stay of proceedings as now sought by the 1st defendant arose in terms of the position of the 2nd defendant, or, more precisely, the problem that would arise if the action against the 1st defendant were to be stayed, thereby leaving extant the existing action against the 2nd defendant. 64.Whilst I appreciate that the alleged liability of the 2nd defendant to the plaintiff is contingent upon the plaintiff succeeding against the 1st defendant, nevertheless if and in so far as there were to be a stay against the 1st defendant, questions inevitably would remain at the trial against the 2nd defendant in terms of any establishment of liability of the 1st defendant as adjudged by a German court. 65.Prior to the adjourned hearing of this application, at which the 2nd defendant now has had the distinct advantage of representation by counsel, this particular issue had troubled this court, not least in light of the desideratum that all disputes against all defendants should be tried in the same court at the same time: see in particular the observations of the late Godfrey J in Konsumex Forein Trade v. Sun Luen Transportation [1990] 1 HKC 247, in which that eminent judge observed:
66.My concerns over the position of the 2nd defendant, and whether a stay of proceedings in favour of the court in Munich or Coburg would cut across this basic principle, largely has been alleviated by Mr Wong’s submission on behalf of the 2nd defendant which, as earlier indicated, has made it clear to the court that from the 2nd defendant’s perspective, it does not matter whether the plaintiff’s claims are to be litigated in Hong Kong or in Germany, and that the 2nd defendant is entirely “neutral” about this application. 67.By the same token Mr Wong also announced that it was his intention to ask this court, whether pursuant to the provisions of Order 14A or Order 33, to judge the very short point which concerned his client in this case, which as he saw it solely was a discrete point of law pursuant to section 3 of the Transfer of Business (Protection of Creditors) Ordinance, Cap.49, that is, whether in the circumstances the legal proceedings as issued against it had been instituted before the notice of transfer had become complete. Thus, concluded Mr Wong, there was no need in the particular circumstances of the claim against the 2nd defendant for the Commercial Court to embark upon a trial in order to determine this specific issue, which in itself was not ‘fact sensitive’. 68.The ostensible neutrality of the 2nd defendant now has assumed significance within the exercise of this court’s discretion regarding this application for a stay of these proceedings against the 1st defendant. 69.In my view the initial hurdle has been overcome by the 1st defendant in demonstrating the existence of some other available and competent forum appropriate for the trial of the plaintiff’s claim against the 1st defendant in which the case may be tried more suitably for the interests of the parties and for the ends of justice. 70.If this be the case, in my view Mr Maurellet has not advanced any particular juridical disadvantage(s) which would enure to his client in the event of a grant of a stay, save to assert generally that if this action against the 1st defendant is stayed, essentially the same matters would have to be proved and ventilated in two courts, there would be a risk of inconsistent findings, and there may well be a ‘race to judgment’ in the two jurisdictions. This specific concern, however, has been allayed by the submissions as now made on behalf of the 2nd defendant; nor, for the same reason, is there any question of whether, if asked, a German court would exercise jurisdiction over the 2nd defendant, which is a matter opined upon by the expert evidence. 71.This concern apart, I do not believe the 1st defendant would be greatly disadvantaged in maintaining suit in Germany, not least since, at the commencement of this adjourned hearing, I have been told that the plaintiff recently itself has commenced its own proceedings against the 1st defendant in the Regional Court of Coburg, although (and I do not consider that this greatly matters) it is appropriate to record that in this regard there is a difference of view between counsel as to whether this action is related or is unrelated to the subject-matter of this particular case. 72.At the end of the day, however, and after considering all arguments placed before me, I have concluded that this court will accede to the present application to stay all further proceedings by the plaintiff against the 1st defendant in favour of proceedings to be issued either in the Regional Court of Coburg or the Regional Court of Munich, to the jurisdiction of either of these German courts the 1st defendant undertakes to submit. 73.I so order. 74.As to costs, I can see no reason why in terms of this application that costs should not follow the event, and accordingly I make an order nisi that the costs of and occasioned by this application be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant, such costs to be taxed if not agreed. 75.In so far as the 2nd defendant is concerned, notwithstanding the assistance rendered to the court by Mr Wong at the adjourned hearing, in the circumstances I have decided to make an order nisi that as between the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant there be no order as to costs. 76.Each of the foregoing costs orders nisi are to become absolute unless within 21 days of the date of this judgment unless application be made to vary either such order. 77.In terms of the action thus remaining by the plaintiff against the 2nd defendant, I apprehend that counsel will agree upon appropriate directions for the further conduct of this action, absent which the court will entertain any such application by the 2nd defendant. 78.Finally, I should be grateful if counsel would agree upon a form of wording required for perfection of an Order in the foregoing terms.
On 22 January 2008: Mr Roger Beresford, instructed by Messrs White & Case, for the 1st defendant/applicant Mr Jose Maurellet, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the plaintiff/respondent Mr Joseph Choi of Messrss Norton Rose Hong Kong (upon watching brief only for the 2nd defendant) On 10 June 2008: Mr Roger Beresford, instructed by Messrs White & Case, for the 1st defendant/applicant Mr Jose Maurellet, instructed by Messrs Deacons, for the plaintiff/respondent Mr William Wong, instructed by Messrs Norton Rose Hong Kong, for the 2nd defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCL 11/2007