CHEERISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TONG PUN CHIU t/a TONG CHIU KEE CONSTRUCTION WORKS CO AND ANOTHER

CHEERISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TONG PUN CHIU t/a TONG CHIU KEE CONSTRUCTION WORKS CO AND ANOTHER

The application for return of the fortified undertaking was refused because the issues were properly stood over to the trial, there was no urgency or satisfactory reason to decide the matter earlier, and there was insufficient material to conclude the defendants had no case or suffered no loss.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHEERISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TONG PUN CHIU t/a TONG CHIU KEE CONSTRUCTION WORKS CO AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheerise Development Limited; First Defendant: Tong Pun Chiu trading as Tong Chiu Kee Construction Works Company; Second Defendant: Tong Pun Chung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 May 1997
Case Number
HCCT36/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Dispute Over Construction Contract; Interim Injunction and Security for Damages / Application to Discharge Injunction and to Return Fortified Undertaking Heard After Injunction Was Stood Over to Trial (inter Partes Summons Stood Over to Trial)
Outcome
Injunction discharged; application for return of fortification refused; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the application.
Legal Topics
Interim Injunction, Security for Damages (fortification), Return of Undertaking, Stay/stand Over to Trial
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Construction Law Equitable Remedies Interim Injunction Security for Damages (fortification) Return of Undertaking Stay/stand Over to Trial

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

Parties

Cheerise Development Limited

Plaintiff

Tong Pun Chiu trading as Tong Chiu Kee Construction Works Company

First Defendant

Tong Pun Chung

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Dispute Over Construction Contract; Interim Injunction and Security for Damages / Application to Discharge Injunction and to Return Fortified Undertaking Heard After Injunction Was Stood Over to Trial (inter Partes Summons Stood Over to Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte injunction should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether the fortified undertaking (HK$200,000) should be returned to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the court should determine the merits of the defendants' claims before trial despite the matter having been stood over

Ratio Decidendi

The application for return of the fortified undertaking was refused because the issues were properly stood over to the trial, there was no urgency or satisfactory reason to decide the matter earlier, and there was insufficient material to conclude the defendants had no case or suffered no loss.

Court Disposition

Injunction discharged; application for return of fortification refused; plaintiff ordered to pay costs of the application.

Orders

  • Injunction discharged.
  • Application by the plaintiff for the return of the fortified sum of $200,000 refused.