HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others

The Court vacated the March trial dates and refixed trial to commence 10 October 1994 because, on the evidence and in all the circumstances, the defendants could not be ready to try the actions in mid‑March and the balance of prejudice favored adjournment to secure a fair trial; further, parts of the judge's orders that adjourned the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions were set aside because a substantial delay constituted a material change in circumstances and defendants must be free to apply afresh to discharge or vary the injunctions.

Citation
HO CHING CHEONG and Others v. THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE\'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA Others
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA AND 2 OTHERS; Respondent/plaintiff: IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS; Appellant/defendant: HO CHING CHEONG AND 2 OTHERS
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 1994
Case Number
HCMP426/1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (case Management/trial Scheduling)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: trial dates vacated and refixed; order as to Mareva discharge applications set aside to allow defendants to apply afresh; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Adjournment, Trial Scheduling, Discharge of Injunctions, Balance of Prejudice, Fair Trial
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Interlocutory Relief Case Management Mareva Injunction Adjournment Trial Scheduling Discharge of Injunctions +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE BEIJING TRUST INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSTRUCTION BANK OF CHINA AND 2 OTHERS

Respondent/plaintiff

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HK) LIMITED AND 3 OTHERS

Respondent/plaintiff

HO CHING CHEONG AND 2 OTHERS

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal (case Management/trial Scheduling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial dates fixed for 14 March 1994 should be vacated because defendants could not be ready to try the cases
  2. 2 Whether parts of the judge's orders adjourning the defendants' applications to discharge Mareva injunctions should be set aside given a material change in circumstances
  3. 3 Whether the balance of prejudice required an adjournment to secure a fair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Court vacated the March trial dates and refixed trial to commence 10 October 1994 because, on the evidence and in all the circumstances, the defendants could not be ready to try the actions in mid‑March and the balance of prejudice favored adjournment to secure a fair trial; further, parts of the judge's orders that adjourned the defendants' applications to discharge the Mareva injunctions were set aside because a substantial delay constituted a material change in circumstances and defendants must be free to apply afresh to discharge or vary the injunctions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: trial dates vacated and refixed; order as to Mareva discharge applications set aside to allow defendants to apply afresh; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Trial dates commencing 14 March 1994 vacated
  • Trial dates refixed to commence 10 October 1994 (estimated duration four weeks)