UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ROE INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ROE INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Roe validly invoked interpleader under Order 17 because competing adverse claims existed to the shares (shares are chattels); having fairly interpleaded and not caused the dispute Roe is entitled to its costs to be paid by the losing claimant Ko, failing which by Prince; A1034 raises no further issues and is to be stayed permanently and Unionix's applications are dismissed.

Citation
UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. ROE INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff Hcmp326/97; 1st Defendant Hca1034/97: Roe Investment Limited; 1st Defendant Hcmp326/97: Prince Good Limited; 2nd Defendant Hcmp326/97: Ko Fei; 3rd Defendant Hcmp326/97; Plaintiff Hca1034/97: Unionix Development Limited; 2nd Defendant Hca1034/97: Kowloon Development Company Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 August 1998
Case Number
HCA1034/1997
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Proceedings and Specific Performance Claim (company/share Transfer Dispute) / Post Trial Costs and Consequential Applications (judgment on Costs and Applications to Amend/lift Stay)
Outcome
Interpleader found proper; Prince and Unionix's summons dismissed; Roe's interpleader costs to be paid by Ko, failing which by Prince; A1034 stayed permanently and Unionix's applications dismissed; certificate for two Counsel.
Legal Topics
Interpleader, Specific Performance, Share Transfer, Costs Orders, Stay of Proceedings, Indemnity
Source Language
EN
Company Law Equity Civil Procedure Costs Property (shares) Interpleader Specific Performance Share Transfer +3 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roe Investment Limited

Plaintiff Hcmp326/97; 1st Defendant Hca1034/97

Prince Good Limited

1st Defendant Hcmp326/97

Ko Fei

2nd Defendant Hcmp326/97

Unionix Development Limited

3rd Defendant Hcmp326/97; Plaintiff Hca1034/97

Kowloon Development Company Limited

2nd Defendant Hca1034/97

Procedural Posture

Interpleader Proceedings and Specific Performance Claim (company/share Transfer Dispute) / Post Trial Costs and Consequential Applications (judgment on Costs and Applications to Amend/lift Stay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Roe properly brought an interpleader under Order 17
  2. 2 Whether Roe is entitled to its costs and who should pay them
  3. 3 Whether the action A1034 should be stayed/lismissed and whether Unionix may amend to claim damages

Ratio Decidendi

Roe validly invoked interpleader under Order 17 because competing adverse claims existed to the shares (shares are chattels); having fairly interpleaded and not caused the dispute Roe is entitled to its costs to be paid by the losing claimant Ko, failing which by Prince; A1034 raises no further issues and is to be stayed permanently and Unionix's applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Interpleader found proper; Prince and Unionix's summons dismissed; Roe's interpleader costs to be paid by Ko, failing which by Prince; A1034 stayed permanently and Unionix's applications dismissed; 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.