Servicemen's Guides Association Fenwick Pier, Wanchai, Hong Kong v. Christine N Ltd

DCCJ203/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 203 OF 2008

----------------------

----------------------

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

Date of Hearing: 7 January 2010

Date of Decision:   7 January 2010

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1.This is the Plaintiff’s application for security of payment to be made by the Defendant in the sum of HK$86,200, and in default of complying with the order to be made by this court, the defence and counterclaim be struck out and judgment be entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the Defendant’s use and occupation of the premises in question in this case, with damages to be assessed.

2.On 23 July 2009, Judge Simon Leung made an order comprising four paragraphs.  The fourth paragraph of that order reads:  “Costs summarily assessed in the sum of HK$86,200, which the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff forthwith.”  The Defendant did not comply with the order contained in this paragraph.  The Defendant’s representative said that he would only pay this amount after trial.  The trial will commence on 1 February 2010, with two days reserved, pursuant to the order made by Master C Lee on 29 July 2009.  She explained that she knew the character of the Plaintiff’s witness.  If the Defendant pays up this amount of HK$86,200, the Plaintiff will not come up to trial.  If this is true, then it will be to the benefit of the Defendant because then there will be no evidence from this particular witness of the Plaintiff.  But this cannot be a reason for not paying this amount.  The payment of this sum is not for the purpose of securing the attendance of the Plaintiff’s witness.  This reason is totally invalid.

3.The Defendant’s representative also raised other reasons to oppose the Plaintiff’s application, such as the alleged non-payment of $200 by the Plaintiff.  I consider all these reasons irrelevant to the payment of the HK$86,200.  The Defendant’s non-payment of this figure is no doubt an intentional flouting of a court order which they could and should have complied with a long time ago.

4.I cannot see any valid reason to oppose the Plaintiff’s application.  I therefore make an order in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff’s summons.

(Submissions on costs)

5.I order that the Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff HK$18,000, being costs of this application, to be paid within 30 days from today.

Mr John Clancey, instructed by Messrs Ho, Tse, Wai & Partners for the Plaintiff

Defendant, in person, present