LUI FUNG YEE v. LIU SIU FOON, the Administrator of the estate of CHAN KWOK HUNG, deceased AND ANOTHER

LUI FUNG YEE v. LIU SIU FOON, the Administrator of the estate of CHAN KWOK HUNG, deceased AND ANOTHER

The application to stay was refused because the proceedings were advanced and ready for trial, the plaintiffs' purely economic concern about enforceability did not constitute a sufficiently good reason to deprive them of the right to proceed, and the court must not assume non-compliance with orders; therefore the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 534
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 1856/2016): Ricco (International) Company Limited; Plaintiff (hca 1858/2016): Lui Fung Yee; 1st Defendant: Liu Siu Foon, Administrator of the estate of Chan Kwok Hung (deceased); 2nd Defendant: Uni Harvest International Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 February 2021
Case Number
HCA1858/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Application to Stay Proceedings Pending Payment of Costs Orders / Application in Chambers; Substantive Proceedings Ready to Be Set Down for Trial
Outcome
Application to stay HCA 1856/2016 and HCA 1858/2016 refused
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Enforcement of Costs Orders, Winding Up Petition, Abuse of Process, Costs Taxation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Costs Enforcement Insolvency (winding Up) Stay of Proceedings Enforcement of Costs Orders Winding Up Petition Abuse of Process +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ricco (International) Company Limited

Plaintiff (hca 1856/2016)

Lui Fung Yee

Plaintiff (hca 1858/2016)

Liu Siu Foon, Administrator of the estate of Chan Kwok Hung (deceased)

1st Defendant

Uni Harvest International Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Application to Stay Proceedings Pending Payment of Costs Orders / Application in Chambers; Substantive Proceedings Ready to Be Set Down for Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of HCA 1856 and HCA 1858 should be granted pending payment by the 2nd defendant of earlier costs orders
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff may withhold prosecution of its own claims on the basis that a successful judgment may be unenforceable
  3. 3 Whether the winding-up petition amounted to abuse of process or was premature

Ratio Decidendi

The application to stay was refused because the proceedings were advanced and ready for trial, the plaintiffs' purely economic concern about enforceability did not constitute a sufficiently good reason to deprive them of the right to proceed, and the court must not assume non-compliance with orders; therefore the balance of justice favoured continuing the proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application to stay HCA 1856/2016 and HCA 1858/2016 refused

Orders

  • Stay refused
  • Costs ordered to be in the cause