AMPITTIA INC. v. B-TECH (HOLDINGS) LTD. AND OTHERS

AMPITTIA INC. v. B-TECH (HOLDINGS) LTD. AND OTHERS

The application for further fortification and for variation/removal of the stay was refused because the order granting the stay had been perfected and the trial judge was functus officio, therefore he had no power to vary that stay; any change must be sought in the Court of Appeal.

Citation
AMPITTIA INC. v. B-TECH (HOLDINGS) LTD. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Ampittia Inc.; 1st Defendant: B-TECH (HOLDINGS) LIMITED formerly known as DONG-JUN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: Coupeville Limited; 3rd Defendant: Easycom Limited; 4th Defendant: Thing On Enterprises Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 March 2001
Case Number
HCA338/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Injunction Application to Vary Stay Pending Appeal / Chambers Decision on Application to Vary Stay and for Further Fortification
Outcome
4th Defendant's application refused on basis that the judge was functus officio
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Mareva Injunction, Stay Pending Appeal, Undertaking as to Damages, Specific Performance, Frustration, Functus Officio
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Contract Property Injunctions Mareva Injunction Stay Pending Appeal Undertaking as to Damages +3 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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ampittia Inc.

Plaintiff

B-TECH (HOLDINGS) LIMITED formerly known as DONG-JUN (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

1st Defendant

Coupeville Limited

2nd Defendant

Easycom Limited

3rd Defendant

Thing On Enterprises Limited

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Injunction Application to Vary Stay Pending Appeal / Chambers Decision on Application to Vary Stay and for Further Fortification

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court could vary a perfected order granting a stay pending appeal
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to pay HK$30,000,000 into court as further fortification of its undertaking as to damages
  3. 3 Whether the 4th Defendant's allegation of frustration justified additional security

Ratio Decidendi

The application for further fortification and for variation/removal of the stay was refused because the order granting the stay had been perfected and the trial judge was functus officio, therefore he had no power to vary that stay; any change must be sought in the Court of Appeal.

Court Disposition

4th Defendant's application refused on basis that the judge was functus officio

Orders

  • Application refused
  • Parties to be heard on costs