Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1859/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 23 February 2012 before Deputy High Court Judge Lisa Wong, SC.
Civil procedure – stay of proceedings – arbitration – insolvency – Mareva injunction – whether Injunction Proceedings and arbitration should be stayed pending determination of winding-up petition – lis alibi pendes principles – Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) s.48 – High Court Ordinance (Cap 4) s.16(3) – Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A) Order 1A r.1 and Order 1B r.1(2)(e) – Companies Ordinance (Cap 32) ss.178(1)(a), 182, 186 – Eastman and Heyro were parties to a Distributor Contract dated 1 January 2009 expiring 31 December 2010, with distribution extended by conduct to 31 July 2011 – Heyro failed to pay US$1,569,540.14 for goods delivered – Eastman obtained ex parte Mareva injunction from Yam J on 23 September 2011 and issued Notice of Arbitration on 27 September 2011 – statutory demand served under s.178(1)(a) Companies Ordinance and Winding-up Petition (HCCW 346/2011) presented on 26 October 2011 – Eastman sought to stay both the Injunction Proceedings and the Arbitration pending the Winding-up Petition, while continuing the Mareva injunction – whether the court should grant a stay in the circumstances – whether the court has jurisdiction to stay an arbitration – Held, dismissing the application: (1) as to the Injunction Proceedings, the lis alibi pendes-type principles in Linfield Ltd v Taoho Design Architects Ltd and Intel Corp v Via Technologies Inc applied; a defendant has a right, as an integral element of the court's jurisdiction to grant an ex parte Mareva injunction, to apply for its discharge or variation, and that right should not be deprived absent very good reasons; the alleged cost savings were illusory, the HK$200,000 cap on Heyro's legal expenses and s.182 Companies Ordinance already provided protection against dissipation, and granting a stay would frustrate rather than fulfil the Civil Justice Reform objectives in Order 1A; (2) as to the Arbitration, s.16(3) High Court Ordinance and Order 1B r.1 apply only to proceedings before the court and cannot be exercised over arbitration, and the proper forum for a stay application was the arbitral tribunal now that it had been convened on 16 January 2012; an otherwise properly made application for a stay was not a breach of Eastman's Undertaking or implied obligation of diligence – the Mareva injunction was continued on the same terms until further order – Eastman was ordered to pay Heyro's costs, to be taxed if not agreed, with a Certificate for Counsel.
Legal issues: Whether to stay the Injunction Proceedings (including the hearing on continuation/discharge of the Mareva injunction) pending the Winding-up Petition · Whether the court has jurisdiction to stay the Arbitration and whether such an application breaches the Undertaking
Outcome: Eastman's application by Summons dated 22 November 2011 to stay the Injunction Proceedings and the Arbitration is dismissed; the Mareva injunction (as varied and extended) is continued on the same terms until further order.
Cites 1 case