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

La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Group Holdings Ltd v Zhang Lan And Another

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date10 August 2020
Neutral Citation[2020] HKCFI 1969
Year2020
Judgement NumberHCCT35/2019
Subject MatterConstruction and Arbitration Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCCT35A/2019 LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LTD v. ZHANG LAN AND ANOTHER

HCCT 35/2019
HCCT 36/2019
(dealt with together)

[2020] HKCFI 1969

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO 35 OF 2019

____________

IN THE MATTER of the enforcement of arbitration award dated 28 April 2019 made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission
(Pursuant to sections 84 and 92(1)(b) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) and Order 73 rule 10 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A))

BETWEEN
LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Applicant

and
ZHANG LAN 1st Respondent
GRAND LAN HOLDINGS GROUP (BVI) LIMITED 2nd Respondent

____________

AND

HCCT 36/2019

CONSTRUCTION AND ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

NO 36 OF 2019

____________

IN THE MATTER of the enforcement of arbitration award dated 28 April 2019 made by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission
(Pursuant to sections 84 and 92(1)(b) of the Arbitration Ordinance (Cap 609) and Order 73 rule 10 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A))

BETWEEN
LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING COMPANY LIMITED Applicant

and
ZHANG LAN 1st Respondent
GRAND LAN HOLDINGS GROUP
(BVI) LIMITED 2nd Respondent
QIAO JIANG LAN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
(formerly named as SOUTH BEAUTY
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED) 3rd Respondent
____________
(dealt with together)
Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers
Dates of written Submissions: 10 June 2020, 2 July 2020 (revised on 31 July 2020) and 9 July 2020
Date of Decision: 10 August 2020

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1. The Respondents seek leave to appeal against my Decision of 23 April 2020 (“Decision”), whereby I granted a Hadkinson Order against the 1st Respondent and security against the 3 Respondents. The nomenclature in the Decision is adopted herein.

2. By the Decision, security was ordered against the Respondents as a condition for adjourning the Respondents’ Summons to set aside the Enforcement Orders made by this Court, whereby leave was granted to the Applicant to enforce arbitral awards in Hong Kong. The Hadkinson Order was made against Zhang, to the effect that until she has fully complied with the injunction and disclosure orders made by the Court on 26 February 2015, she should not be heard on the Summons for setting aside the Enforcement Orders.

3. The orders in the Decision were made in the exercise of the discretion of the Court. 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 exercised his discretion under a mistake of law or 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...

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