Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Allied Arab Bank Limited v Taj El Arefin Hajjar And Others

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date12 June 1987
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement NumberHCCL9/1987
Subject MatterCommercial Action
HCCL000009/1987 ALLIED ARAB BANK LIMITED v. TAJ EL AREFIN HAJJAR AND OTHERS

HCCL000009/1987

1987 No. CL-9

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL LIST

__________

BETWEEN

ALLIED ARAB BANK LIMITED Plaintiffs
and
TAJ EL AREFIN HAJJAR (Male)

UTG INVESTMENTS (FAR EAST) LTD.

UTG PROJECTS (CHINA) LTD.

UTG INDUSTRIAL (HK) LTD.

UTG FUJIAN HOTELS LTD.

UTG XIAMEN INVESTMENTS LTD.

 1st Defendant

3rd Defendant

4th Defendant

5th Defendant

6th Defendant

7th Defendant

___________

Coram: Deputy Judge Litton Q.C. in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 8th-12th June, 1987

Date of Ruling on Costs: 12th June, 1987

__________________

RULING ON COSTS

__________________

1. The Summons to Strike Out was issued on the 20th of March this year, following upon some correspondences between the solicitors for the parties. Solicitors for the Defendants had written to the Plaintiffs indicating in general terms defects in the pleadings and inviting amendment; when none was forthcoming, the Summons to Strike Out was taken out. It seeks an order that the whole of the Points of Claim be struck out and the action be dismissed. On the 3rd of June, less than one week before the Summons was due to be heard, the Points of Claim were extensively amended.

2. The Defendants did not take the stance that consequent upon those amendments, part of the Points of Claim could survive their attack. They maintained their position that the Points of Claim pleaded no reasonable cause of action, and that is how the matter was opened before me on Monday this week.

3. In the outcome, of the four causes of action pleaded, two had been ordered to be struck out, one (that of conspiracy) was partially struck out. I do not think it right for me to have much regard to the fact that what survived was in fact the amendments effected on the 3rd of June; the Defendants did not take the stance (as they might have done) that consequent upon the amendments, they were no longer seeking to attack the whole of the pleading. The outcome of the position as I see it is that the Defendants have failed to obtain the order they sought, which is that the Points of Claim be struck out and the action dismissed. To that extent, it can be said that they have failed in the Summons before me. However, looking at the matter realistically, they...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT