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

The Incorporated Owners Of Million Fortune Industrial Centre v Jikan Development Ltd. And Another

Judgment Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date01 November 2002
Judgement NumberCACV381/2001
Subject MatterCivil Appeal
CACV000381A/2001 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE v. JIKAN DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

CACV000381A/2001

CACV 381 & 503/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 381 & 503 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 14915 OF 1998)

_______________________

BETWEEN
THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MILLION FORTUNE INDUSTRIAL CENTRE Plaintiff
AND
JIKAN DEVELOPMENT LIMITED 1st Defendant

PLOTIO PROPERTY AND MANAGEMENT LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Coram: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Stone J in Court

Date of Hearing: 1 November 2002

Date of Judgment: 1 November 2002

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Rogers VP:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. There is no resistance to the grant of leave to appeal. The only question between the parties is as to the amount of security that should be ordered. Security can be ordered up to an amount of $400,000. In this case there are two defendants, who are separate companies, and the amount which is sought from each defendant is only $200,000. That, despite Miss Lo's careful and thorough argument, and taking us through some of the figures, I am not convinced is in any way out of order. In my view the costs on the appeal, if it goes to the Court of Final Appeal, are likely to be very much more than a total of $400,000. I have no hesitation in saying that I think that the figure sought by the plaintiffs is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

2. The point that is put by Mr Ho and Miss Lo is that security should not be ordered because the defendants are impecunious. The position of the 1st defendant is that it has some property in the way of land but that this is not available to it partly because there are injunction orders against its use.

3. That is not perhaps surprising. According to the affidavit evidence, very shortly after judgment was handed down in the court below on 9 February, the 1st defendant charged all its landed properties, which are its major assets of any value, to its associated companies and its solicitors. The net effect is that there is a judgment sum owing of over $4,400,000; there are costs which are said to be owing by the 1st defendant of $2,315,000 and the 2nd defendant owes the plaintiff some $674,000 for...

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