HABANERA LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINECOM LTD. AND OTHERS

HABANERA LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINECOM LTD. AND OTHERS

Stay refused because the 1st defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal or provide evidence that execution would ruin it; plaintiffs entitled to costs on an indemnity basis against the 2nd and 3rd defendants because liability and indemnity were pleaded and defendants produced no evidence to render the guarantee provision unenforceable; leave granted to enforce the judgment against the 1st defendant for payment with amended order for specific performance matters.

Citation
HABANERA LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINECOM LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Habanera Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Yeung Wai Man; 1st Defendant: Finecom Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hau Shiu Kai; 3rd Defendant: Li Chi Sing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2000
Case Number
HCA7946/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil (contract) / Decision in Chambers on Stay of Execution, Costs and Enforcement Leave
Outcome
Stay of execution refused; plaintiffs granted indemnity costs against 2nd and 3rd defendants; leave granted to enforce judgment against 1st defendant; court order amended to reflect proper minutes for specific performance and enforcement.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Stay of Execution Pending Appeal, Indemnity Costs Under Guarantee, Guarantee Enforceability, Leave to Enforce Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement Specific Performance Stay of Execution Pending Appeal Indemnity Costs Under Guarantee Guarantee Enforceability +1 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Habanera Limited

1st Plaintiff

Yeung Wai Man

2nd Plaintiff

Finecom Limited

1st Defendant

Hau Shiu Kai

2nd Defendant

Li Chi Sing

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (contract) / Decision in Chambers on Stay of Execution, Costs and Enforcement Leave

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether stay of execution pending appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to costs on indemnity basis under the guarantee against 2nd and 3rd defendants
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to enforce the judgment against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Stay refused because the 1st defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal or provide evidence that execution would ruin it; plaintiffs entitled to costs on an indemnity basis against the 2nd and 3rd defendants because liability and indemnity were pleaded and defendants produced no evidence to render the guarantee provision unenforceable; leave granted to enforce the judgment against the 1st defendant for payment with amended order for specific performance matters.

Court Disposition

Stay of execution refused; plaintiffs granted indemnity costs against 2nd and 3rd defendants; leave granted to enforce judgment against 1st defendant; court order amended to reflect proper minutes for specific performance and enforcement.

Orders

  • Stay of execution pending appeal refused as to the 1st defendant
  • Leave granted to plaintiffs to argue costs out of time