Dynasty Line Ltd (Provisional Liquidators Appointed) v Sukamto Sia And Another

CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date11 June 2009
Judgement NumberCACV180/2008
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CACV000180B/2008 DYNASTY LINE LTD (Provisional Liquidators appointed) v. SUKAMTO SIA AND ANOTHER

CACV 180/2008 and
CACV 184/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 180 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2057 OF 2007)

________________________

BETWEEN

DYNASTY LINE LIMITED
(Provisional Liquidators appointed)
Plaintiff
and
SUKAMTO SIA
(also known as SUKAMTO SUKARMAN)
1st Defendant
LEE HOWE YONG 2nd Defendant

And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2008

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA 2057 OF 2007)

________________________

BETWEEN

DYNASTY LINE LIMITED
(Provisional Liquidators appointed)
Plaintiff
and
SUKAMTO SIA
(also known as SUKAMTO SUKARMAN)
1st Defendant
LEE HOWE YONG 2nd Defendant

Before : Hon Cheung, Yuen JJA and Burrell J in Court

Date of Hearing : 11 June 2009

Date of Decision : 11 June 2009

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

I. Costs of the appeal and below

1. The 1st defendant is entitled to two-thirds of the costs of the appeal and below. The reason why the 1st defendant is deprived of part of the costs is that his case involves two discrete matters, namely, first, whether he was properly served within jurisdiction and second, if so, whether the action should be stayed by reason of forum nonconveniens. As the 1st defendant failed on the first matter which involved the calling of factual evidence, he should not be entitled to the costs relating to the first matter.

2. The 2nd defendant is entitled to the full costs of the appeal and below. Although he only succeeded on the issue of forum nonconveniens, ultimately the sole question is whether it was a proper case for service outside jurisdiction on the 2nd defendant and he succeeded on this question.

3. This is not a proper case for an indemnity costs order.

II. Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal

4. The plaintiff has not shown that the case is so exceptional that leave should be granted on the ‘or otherwise’ ground.

III. Mareva injunction

5. As the plaintiff failed to obtain leave to appeal, it should not be entitled to a mareva injunction pending appeal.

6. This is also not an appropriate case for granting an interim mareva...

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