Richard Ethan Latker v. Chamkaur Singh

HCA 610/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 610 OF 2012

____________

____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.This is an application for an injunction to enjoin the respondent from proceeding with four litigations pending investigation by the ICAC into alleged fraudulent conduct of the defendant.

2.The litigations are:

DCEC 796/2007; DCPI 132/2009; CACV 270/2009 and DCCJ 1309/2009.

3.For DCEC 796, CACV 270 and DCCJ 1309, the outstanding issues are costs. 

4.Since the costs order in CACV 270 was made by the Court of Appeal, I cannot enjoin the respondent from pursing that.  The applicant will have to go the Court of Appeal for a further order to stop the execution of the costs order of that court.

5.For DCEC 796 and DCCJ 1309, these cases are in the District Court.  If the applicant wants an order to suspend these costs orders, he should go to the District Court and apply under those actions.

6.For DCCJ 1309 which, from the submissions of the applicant, appears to have been dismissed/struck out.  The applicant seems to have grievance about the dismissal/striking out.  Again, I have no power to look into that as I do not have any appellate jurisdiction over the District Court.

7.For these reasons, the applicant’s application in respect of DCEC 796/2007, CACV 270/2009 and DCCJ 1309/2009 is dismissed.

8.Regarding DCPI 1323/2009, the trial will commence on 15 May.  If the applicant has any ground to ask for an order to suspend or stop that trail pending investigation by the ICAC, he should apply for the order from the District Court.  I do not think it right for me to interfere with the conduct of an action by the District Court.  Furthermore, I am not privy to the facts of that case. 

9.If the applicant feels aggrieved by any order or decision of the District Court, he can take the matter to the Court of Appeal, not the Court of First Instance.

10.I therefore dismiss the applicant’s application for injunction in relation to DCPI 1323/2009 as well.  That disposes of the applicant’s application.

11.I finally order that the applicant should pay the respondent the costs of this application including the costs of today.

12.I come to the above decision before I have heard the respondent’s solicitors because the reasons that drive me to this conclusion are plain and straightforward.

The plaintiff (applicant) appeared in person

Mr Dheeraj Suresh Mohnani, of Jal N Karbhari & Co, for the defendant (respondent)