CHAN HONG JOO AND ANOTHER v. SINO CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

CHAN HONG JOO AND ANOTHER v. SINO CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

The appeal is dismissed because the Singapore judgment was for a monetary claim arising from a contract (not a judgment in respect of immovable property), the Singapore court was competent and proper notice was given to the Defendants so there was no breach of natural justice, registration could be made ex parte under the rules, and the matter is res judicata.

Citation
CHAN HONG JOO AND ANOTHER v. SINO CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Chan Hong Joo; 2nd Plaintiff: Ng Thiam Eng; 1st Defendant: Sino Concept Development Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ken Ip
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 September 2000
Case Number
HCMP1067/2000
Procedural Posture
Registration of Foreign Judgment Under Foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (cap. 319) / Appeal From Master's Decision on Application to Set Aside Registration
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Registration of Foreign Judgment, Service of Process, Res Judicata, Jurisdiction, Setting Aside Registration
Source Language
EN
Civil Conflict of Laws Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Property Law Procedural Law Registration of Foreign Judgment Service of Process Res Judicata +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chan Hong Joo

1st Plaintiff

Ng Thiam Eng

2nd Plaintiff

Sino Concept Development Limited

1st Defendant

Ken Ip

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Registration of Foreign Judgment Under Foreign Judgments (reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (cap. 319) / Appeal From Master's Decision on Application to Set Aside Registration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Singapore judgment is in respect of immovable property and therefore non‑registrable
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants were properly served and accorded natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the Singapore court was a court of competent jurisdiction and the judgment remains valid for registration

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Singapore judgment was for a monetary claim arising from a contract (not a judgment in respect of immovable property), the Singapore court was competent and proper notice was given to the Defendants so there was no breach of natural justice, registration could be made ex parte under the rules, and the matter is res judicata.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Plaintiffs