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

La Dolce Vita Fine Dining Co Ltd v Zhang Lan

Judgment Cited authorities 5 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date05 March 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCFI 618
Judgement NumberHCMP585/2017
Citation[2019] 2 HKLRD 341
Year2019
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCMP585A/2017 LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING CO LTD v. ZHANG LAN

HCMP 585/2017
HCMP 586/2017
(heard together)

[2019] HKCFI 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 585 OF 2017

____________

IN THE MATTER of an Application on behalf of LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING COMPANY LIMITED against ZHANG LAN for an Order for Committal

_____________

BETWEEN
LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING COMPANY LIMITED Plaintiff
and
ZHANG LAN Defendant

AND

HCMP 586/2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 586 OF 2017

_____________

IN THE MATTER of an Application on behalf of LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED against ZHANG LAN for an Order for Committal

_____________

BETWEEN
LA DOLCE VITA FINE DINING GROUP HOLDINGS LIMITED Plaintiff
and
ZHANG LAN Defendant

_____________

(Heard Together)

Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Court

Date of Hearing: 5 March 2019

Date of Judgment: 5 March 2019

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________


1. On 14 March 2018，I found the Defendant to be in contempt of Court, for breach of an Order made on 26 February 2015 (“Order”) which required her to disclose all of her assets of an individual value of HK$500,000 or more, which Order was in aid of a Mareva injunction made against the Defendant on the same day. The facts of the case are already set out in the Judgment dated 14 March 2018 (“Judgment”).

2. Today is the adjourned hearing fixed to hear the parties’ submissions on the appropriate penalty and consequential orders to be made in respect of the Defendant’s contempt (“Penalty Hearing”). The date of the Penalty Hearing was fixed as early as 27 July 2018.

3. On 8 February and 15 February 2019, the Defendant through her solicitors confirmed in writing to the Plaintiff and to the Court that the Defendant had no objection to the orders to be sought by the Plaintiffs in respect of the penalty for contempt, and that she would not make any submissions on penalty. The solicitors asked in their letter to the Court that their attendance at the Penalty Hearing be excused.

4. On 28 February 2019, the Plaintiffs filed and served their submissions on sentencing, for the Penalty Hearing.

5. On the same day, the Court issued directions to the parties, directing that as the Defendant’s solicitors remained on the record, they should attend the Penalty Hearing and make submissions on why an immediate custodial sentence should not be imposed on the Defendant.

6. In response, the Defendant’s solicitors wrote to the Court on 28 February 2019, pointing out that they had no instructions to make any submissions, and confirming that the Defendant had no objection to any order that may be made by the Court (including for committal). The Court issued a reminder in writing to the Defendant through her solicitors, that she had been found guilty of contempt of Court and was obliged to appear at the Penalty Hearing, and that a warrant of arrest can be issued to secure her attendance.

7. Notwithstanding the Court’s directions and reminder, the Defendant failed to appear at the Penalty Hearing today. Her solicitors confirmed in court that they had no instructions to make any submissions on behalf of the Defendant, in respect of the penalty and consequential orders to be made, or by way of mitigation on behalf of the Defendant in respect of her contempt.

8. The legal principles applicable to sentencing for contempt of court have been summarized in Suzanne Ruth Henderson v Scott Henderson HCMP 2016/2014, 14 April 2016 and Wilwin Development (Asia) Co Ltd v Wei Xing, HCMP 2946/2014, 16 November 2015. In Suzanne Ruth Henderson, the court emphasized that contempt of civil court orders is a serious matter. A prime consideration of the court in sentencing contempt is to signal the importance of demonstrating to litigants that orders of the court are to be obeyed. The jurisdiction of the court in contempt proceedings arises out of its inherent jurisdiction to enforce its own orders. The purpose of the law of contempt is not to protect the dignity of judges but to prevent interference with the due administration of justice. As succinctly pointed out in RACP Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Li Xiaobo HCA 490/2007:

“The first principle is that court orders are made to be obeyed. They are not guidelines, to be ignored or paid lip...

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