Cogi Enterprises Ltd and Others v. The Incorporated Owners of Malahon Apartments

HCA 816/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 816 OF 2004

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 7 April 2011

Date of Judgment : 7 April 2011

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.This is another application by the defendant for an extension of time by its summons dated 10 March 2011.

2.On 21 December 2010 I granted the IO an extension of time.  As I pointed out in my judgment of that date, the summons before me was for a stay of the injunction order in respect of the pipeworks pending the disposal of the appeal.  However, at the hearing on 21 December 2010 counsel then appearing for the IO (not Mr Maurellet) confirmed that he was no longer applying for a stay of the order pending the disposal of the appeal.  Instead, he was asking for an extension of time so that the IO could comply with the order.  I granted an extension until 12 March 2011 so that the IO could comply with the mandatory injunction. 

3.On the evidence before me, it does not appear to me that the IO has been seriously trying to comply with the order.  It seems to me that what the IO is seeking to do is to seek a further extension of time so that the matter is taken outside the period when the appeal is to be heard on 9 June 2011 and then to ask the Court of Appeal to reverse the mandatory injunction.

4.Mr Maurellet submitted this morning that a shorter adjournment should be given so that they could consult the plaintiffs’ expert.  No serious effort has been made in all the period leading up to this morning for that course to have been adopted.  There is nothing in the affidavit evidence before me to show that the IO is serious in considering that option anyway. 

5.As I indicated to Mr Maurellet, it seems to me that the evidence shows that the IO is not in a position to comply with the mandatory order.  That is contrary to the plaintiffs’ case as submitted by Mr Wright in his written submissions. 

6.I see no valid basis for granting any further extension of time to the IO and I dismiss the application.

7.Costs should follow the event and I make an order that the costs of the application be costs to the plaintiffs.

Mr Colin Wright, instructed by Messrs Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, for the Plaintiffs

Mr Jose A Maurellet, instructed by Messrs Tung, Ng, Tse & Heung, for the Defendant