Stonehill Asia Ltd and Others v. Farwealth Consultancy and Services Ltd and Others

HCA 4453/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 4453 OF 2003

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 28 October 2010

Date of Judgment : 28 October 2010

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.This is the adjourned hearing of the application on the part of the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants for an order that the 2^nd plaintiff’s claim having been provisionally struck out pursuant to Order 25, rule 1C(1) of the Rules of the High Court, the payment into Court made on 30 June 2004 pursuant to the order of the Court be paid out to the 4^th defendant.

2.By the order of 19 May 2010, which I made, it was ordered that the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd plaintiffs’ claim do stand dismissed pursuant to Order 25, rule 1C(6)(a) as of 30 April 2010. 

3.At this hearing today the 2^nd plaintiff has appeared and has referred to an affirmation where he points out that on 22 July 2010 he was released from absolute receivership in Thailand.  The official order was announced on 29 September 2010.  He says in his affirmation that he is preparing to file an application for setting aside the judgment and necessary legal proceedings and he wishes the Court to postpone today’s hearing to wait for his application for setting aside the judgment and/or re-trial. 

4.No grounds for setting aside have been placed before me.  Quite apart from the fact that the 2^nd plaintiff is well out of time in applying to set aside the order, there are no grounds put forward before me as to why this matter should be adjourned any further. 

5.The 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants have had a judgment in their favour for months now and no grounds have been shown as to why those orders should be set aside.  Orders for costs have been made in favour of those defendants and I see no reason why they should have to wait for enforcement of the order for costs. 

6.I make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the summons. 

[argument on costs]

7.As the application for costs is opposed, it seems to me that the matter having been decided in favour of the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants, costs should follow the event.  Costs of this application are to be to the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th defendants to be paid by the plaintiffs.

2^nd Plaintiff, in person, present

3^rd Plaintiff, absent

Mr Patrick Rattigan of Messrs Haldanes, for the 1^st, 3^rd & 4^th Defendants