BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA Soc. Coop. AND ANOTHER v. ALUTECH (FAR EAST) CO LTD AND OTHERS

BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA Soc. Coop. AND ANOTHER v. ALUTECH (FAR EAST) CO LTD AND OTHERS

The application for committal was dismissed because the affidavit was made while the defendant was remanded and lacking documents, the inaccuracies were inadvertent and de minimis, there was no intentional non‑compliance amounting to contempt, and the committal application was unnecessary and punitive; consequentially the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Citation
BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA Soc. Coop. AND ANOTHER v. ALUTECH (FAR EAST) CO LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA Soc. Coop.; 2nd Plaintiff: LLOYD ADRIATICO SPA; 1st Defendant: ALUTECH (FAR EAST) COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: WALL STREET EXCHANGE LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: LOCSIN ANNA ABELIA SAMSON; 4th Defendant: LO TO SANG; 5th Defendant: PAUL JAMES GRANT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 December 2007
Case Number
HCA1973/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Mareva Injunction and Committal for Contempt / Decision on Committal Application (chambers Hearing)
Outcome
Application for committal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Committal for Contempt, Disclosure Obligations, Costs and Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Injunctions Mareva Injunction Committal for Contempt Disclosure Obligations Costs and Indemnity Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BANCA POPOLARE DI VICENZA Soc. Coop.

1st Plaintiff

LLOYD ADRIATICO SPA

2nd Plaintiff

ALUTECH (FAR EAST) COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

WALL STREET EXCHANGE LIMITED

2nd Defendant

LOCSIN ANNA ABELIA SAMSON

3rd Defendant

LO TO SANG

4th Defendant

PAUL JAMES GRANT

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Mareva Injunction and Committal for Contempt / Decision on Committal Application (chambers Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 4th Defendant's affidavit complied with disclosure obligations under the Mareva injunction
  2. 2 Whether inaccuracies in the affidavit amounted to contempt justifying committal
  3. 3 Whether any contempt (if found) was material or de minimis

Ratio Decidendi

The application for committal was dismissed because the affidavit was made while the defendant was remanded and lacking documents, the inaccuracies were inadvertent and de minimis, there was no intentional non‑compliance amounting to contempt, and the committal application was unnecessary and punitive; consequentially the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Application for committal dismissed

Orders

  • Committal application dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay the 4th Defendant's costs of the application and today's hearing, to be taxed on the indemnity basis