Chase Manhattan (Asia) Ltd v. First Bangkok City Finance Ltd

Case No.

Court

Date21 Sep 1988

Judge—

Case Document

100%

CACV000105A/1987

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	1987, No. 105
	(Civil)

BETWEEN

	CHASE MANHATTAN (ASIA) LTD.	Appellant / Respondent

	and

	FIRST BANGKOK CITY FINANCE LTD.	Respondent / Applicant

___________

Coram: Hon. Cons, V. -P., Fuad, V. -P. & Clough, J.A.

Date of hearing: 21st September, 1988.

Date of delivery of judgment: 21st September, 1988.

_____________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Cons, V.-P. delivered the judgment of the Court:

1. The facts and the questions of law that lie behind these proceedings are concisely set out in the judgment of Kempster J.A. delivered in this Court on the 1st July. I do not propose to repeat them.

2. The decision of the Court did not completely satisfy either of the parties to the proceedings and both now wish to appeal to Her Majesty in Council.

3. As far as the application of Chase Manhattan (Asia) Ltd. is concerned, the question involved in the appeal is in respect of property to the value of SF5 million. The Bank therefore has an appeal as of right. We are bound to grant leave subject to conditions as to security and the preparation of the record. These have been agreed between the parties: security shall be entered into in the sum of $200,000; the Record shall be prepared and despatched to England within 2 months.

4. The application by the Official Receiver, who is the liquidator of the finance company concerned, is out of time, but we are satisfied that there are good reasons for extending time, and so we do.

5. The amount at stake with regard to the point on which he seeks to appeal is the difference between the SF5 million covered by the promissory note and the amount which Chase Manhattan (Asia) Ltd. would receive if restricted to proving in the winding up. No affidavit has been filed as to that, but counsel informs us, and we accept, that very large amounts are involved in the winding up. Although the deficit is $430 million, it is very confidently expected, subject to actions now pending, that a dividend of 50 cents in the dollar will be paid. Even so the amount at stake would be well in excess of the $500,000 which is necessary for an appeal as of right, and we are inclined to think that the application should be so treated.

6. If we should be wrong, we are nevertheless satisfied that the point raises matters of importance in relation to international loans. Indeed we are told that the decision of this Court has already been included in respected financial reports. We would therefore be inclined to give leave also on the ground that the question involved ought to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council by season of its great general or public importance.

7. Rule 14 of the Order in Council provides that where two or more applications for leave arise out of the same matter and that we think it would be for he convenience of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee and the parties that the appeal should be consolidated, as we do, we may so direct and grant leave by a single order.

8. Accordingly we make that direction and so grant leave, subject to the conditions mentioned earlier, Chase Manhattan (Asia) Ltd. undertaking to prepare the whole of such Record as is necessary.

9. The costs of today to be costs in the appeal.

(D. Cons)	(K.T. Fuad)	(P.G. Clough)
Vice-President	Vice-President	Justice of Appeal

Representation:

Winston Poon (M/s Johnson, Stokes & Master) for Appellant/Respondent

Christopher Smith, Official Receiver for Respondent/Applicant