Astro Nusantara International B V and Others v. Pt Ayunda Prima Mitra and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCCT 45/2010 on BabelCite. This 高等法院原訟法庭 judgment was delivered on 21 March 2014 before Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers.
Construction and arbitration proceedings concerning an unconditional stay of execution granted by the High Court. The judge emphasised the limited scope of appellate interference with a discretionary order, requiring misdirection in law, factual misapprehension, or consideration of irrelevant or exclusion of relevant factors to overturn. The court found all relevant matters properly considered and the decision not plainly wrong. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused due to lack of reasonable prospects of success or other justifiable reasons, with costs awarded against appellant. The order for payment into court was appropriately linked to pending garnishee and Singapore proceedings, both resolved by the hearing date.
Legal issues: Scope of appellate court’s interference in exercise of discretion · Whether leave to appeal should be granted
Outcome: Refusal of leave to appeal against the order granting unconditional stay of execution
Cites 1 case
|
HCCT 45/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS NO 45 OF 2010 ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 21 March 2014 Date of Decision: 21 March 2014 ____________ D E C I S I O N _____________ 1.The order granting an unconditional stay of execution is an order made on the exercise of the court’s discretion. 2.In an appeal against an exercise of a judge’s discretion, the authorities are clear that the ambit of the appellate court’s interference is restricted. The Court of Appeal will not intervene unless the appellant can show that the judge had misdirected himself with regard to the legal principles in accordance with which his discretion had to be exercised, or had misapprehended material facts, or had taken into account irrelevant matters or failed to take relevant matters into account, such that the judge’s conclusion was plainly wrong, and “outside the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement is possible”. 3.In this case, I am not satisfied that I had exercised my discretion under wrong principles of law, or that my decision was plainly wrong. 4.The factors taken into consideration in the exercise of my discretion have all been set out in my Decision and I am not persuaded that they are irrelevant, or that any relevant matter had not been taken into account. The orders for the payment into court were made pending the determination of the garnishee proceedings, and pending the determination of the Singapore proceedings. Both proceedings had been determined by the time of the application before me. This cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration. 5.Leave to appeal will only be granted if the contemplated appeal has reasonable prospects of success. I am not satisfied that the proposed appeal has reasonable prospects of success. Nor am I satisfied that there is any other reason in the interests of justice for leave to appeal to be granted. I accordingly refuse leave to appeal, with costs including certificate for counsel.
Mr Clifford Smith SC, instructed by Clifford Chance, for the judgment creditors Mr Mark Strachan SC, instructed by Stephenson Harwood, for the 2nd judgment debtor Mr Horace Wong, SC and Mr Liu Man Kin, instructed by Reed Smith Richards Butler, for the garnishee |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCCT 45/2010