Lieu Tseng Van v. Zhuhai Holdings Investment Group Ltd

CACV 152/2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 152 OF 2012

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 1645 OF 2009)

____________

____________

_______________

_______________

RULING

_______________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Ruling of the Court):

1.On 27 September 2013 this court handed down judgment dismissing the appeal of Lieu Tseng Van (and the parties connected with him) save that it was ordered that the sum of HKD30 million be substituted for the sum of the HKD equivalent of RMB26 million in the order made by the trial judge at para.118(2) of his Reasons for Judgment handed down on 7 June 2012.

2.As a result of the substitution of the figures, the order proposed in para. 30.1 of the judgment of this court was that “Lieu Tseng Van, Chen Siu Ling and Van Shipping Company Limited to pay Jiuzhou Development Company Limited (now known as Zhuhai Holdings Investment Group Limited) HKD30 million with interest at the best lending rate of the Hong Kong bank from 27 May 2009 to 7 June 2012”. 

3.We also made a costs order nisi which did not refer to whether there should be a certificate for two counsel.

4.No order has yet been sealed.

5.Subsequent to the judgment, the solicitors for the parties have written to the court regarding the period of interest as well as the question of whether there should be a certificate for two counsel. 

6.It was proposed by this court that to save costs, the matters could be dealt with on paper without a hearing.  There was no objection by the parties. 

Certificate for two counsel

7.Dealing first with the costs issue, the correspondence from both sides has been treated as submissions for variation of the costs order nisi.  Taking into account the amount involved and the representation from both sides, there shall be a certificate for two counsel.

Interest period

8.The situation appears to be as follows.

(a) in Hon. L. Chan J’s Reasons for Judgment (para 118(2)), the judge ordered the losing parties to pay the winning party the HKD equivalent of RMB26m with interest at the HSBC best lending rate (“HSBC BLR”) from 27 May 2009 to 7 June 2012 (i.e. the date of judgment);

(b) however in the sealed Order (both original and amended), the order was for payment of interest at the HSBC BLR until the date of full payment;

(c) in the Notice of Appeal, it was stated (contrary to the sealed Order) that the judge’s order was for interest at the HSBC BLR to be paid from 27 May 2009 to 7 June 2012;

(d) neither the original nor amended sealed Order was included in the Core Bundle for the appeal;  

(e) this court assumed (wrongly as it turned out) that the Notice of Appeal followed the wording of the sealed Order (as it should have) and neither party drew the attention of the court to any discrepancy;

(f) consequently this court ordered in para 30.1 of the judgment handed down on 27 September 2013 that the judge's order in this regard be substituted with an order that the losing parties pay the winning party HKD30m at the HSBC BLR from 27 May 2009 to 7 June 2012;

(g) it was not until a letter was received from Messrs Wong Poon Chan & Law, the appellants’ solicitors, dated 4 October 2013 (enclosing the sealed Order) that this court was informed that the wording of the sealed order (both original and amended) was for interest at the HSBC BLR from 27 May 2009 to “date of full payment”;

(h) it is noted that neither party has appealed against that part of the sealed Order that interest be paid at the HSBC BLR to “date of full payment”.

9.In these circumstances, this court took the view that the proper course to take would be to issue a corrigendum to the effect that para.30.1 of the judgment of this court be amended such that the new order would read (consistently with the sealed Order of the court below) that the losing parties are to pay the winning party HKD30 million with interest at the HSBC BLR “from 27 May 2009 to date of full payment”.

10.On 16 October 2013, this proposed course was communicated to the parties.  Neither party has indicated any objection to it. 

11.A corrigendum will accordingly be issued and the sealed order will refer to the interest period as expiring on the “date of full payment”. 

Messrs Wong Poon Chan Law & Co, former solicitors for the Plaintiff (by original action) and the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th Defendants (by counterclaim)/Appellants

Messrs Liu, Chan and Lam, current solicitors for the Plaintiff (by original action) and the 1^st, 2^nd and 4^th Defendants (by counterclaim)/Appellants with effect from 21 October 2013

Messrs Wilkinson & Grist, for the Defendant (by original action) and the Plaintiff (by    counterclaim)/Respondent