ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOHTER

ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOHTER

Roe was properly entitled to take out an interpleader under Order 17 r.1 because it was under liability in respect of the chattels (shares) and faced adverse claims by Prince and Ko; having submitted the dispute to court and by consent directions the claim between Prince and Ko was to be determined first, Roe was entitled to its costs; costs of the interpleader and associated proceedings were ordered against the losing claimant Ko, failing which against Prince, and the related action A1034 was permanently stayed with Unionix's applications dismissed.

Citation
ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOHTER
Parties
Plaintiff (hcmp326); 1st Defendant (hca1034): Roe Investment Limited; 1st Defendant (hcmp326): Prince Good Limited; 2nd Defendant (hcmp326): Ko Fei; 3rd Defendant (hcmp326); Plaintiff (hca1034): Unionix Development Limited; 2nd Defendant (hca1034): Kowloon Development Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 1998
Case Number
HCMP326/1997
Procedural Posture
Interpleader and Related Specific Performance and Contract Actions (consolidated/cross‑actions) / Post‑trial Costs and Consequential Orders (judgment on Costs and Interpleader)
Outcome
Summons of Prince and Unionix dismissed; Roe's interpleader proper and Roe entitled to costs from Ko, failing which from Prince; A1034 stayed permanently and Unionix's applications dismissed; Ko to indemnify Prince/Unionix costs; certificate for two Counsel.
Legal Topics
Interpleader, Specific Performance, Share Transfer, Custodian Costs, Order 17 R.1
Source Language
EN
Equity Company Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Costs Interpleader Specific Performance Share Transfer +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roe Investment Limited

Plaintiff (hcmp326); 1st Defendant (hca1034)

Prince Good Limited

1st Defendant (hcmp326)

Ko Fei

2nd Defendant (hcmp326)

Unionix Development Limited

3rd Defendant (hcmp326); Plaintiff (hca1034)

Kowloon Development Company Limited

2nd Defendant (hca1034)

Procedural Posture

Interpleader and Related Specific Performance and Contract Actions (consolidated/cross‑actions) / Post‑trial Costs and Consequential Orders (judgment on Costs and Interpleader)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Roe was entitled to bring an interpleader summons under Order 17 r.1 in respect of disputed shares
  2. 2 Which claimant (Prince or Ko) was the beneficial owner of Unionix shares
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs arising from the interpleader and related proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Roe was properly entitled to take out an interpleader under Order 17 r.1 because it was under liability in respect of the chattels (shares) and faced adverse claims by Prince and Ko; having submitted the dispute to court and by consent directions the claim between Prince and Ko was to be determined first, Roe was entitled to its costs; costs of the interpleader and associated proceedings were ordered against the losing claimant Ko, failing which against Prince, and the related action A1034 was permanently stayed with Unionix's applications dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons of Prince and Unionix dismissed; Roe's interpleader proper and Roe entitled to costs from Ko, failing which from Prince; A1034 stayed permanently and Unionix's applications dismissed; Ko to indemnify Prince/Unionix costs; certificate for two Counsel.

Orders

  • Summons of Prince and Unionix dated 13 May 1998 under MP326 dismissed with costs to Roe against Prince and Unionix
  • Roe's costs in respect of the Interpleader Summons under MP326 to be paid by Ko Fei, failing which by Prince Good Limited