PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS

The court found there was no good reason for the third, fourth and fifth extensions because the original justification (awaiting outcome of related jurisdictional proceedings) had ceased to exist and subsequent reasons relied on plaintiff convenience, cost-saving or unrelated proceedings were insufficient; accordingly the third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ are set aside. The court refused to set aside the first extension and leave to serve out for material non-disclosure, finding that the affirmations sufficiently implied the ancillary Taiwan proceedings and limitation issues were not blatantly evident as non-disclosed.

Citation
PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HU HUNG CHIU AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Company Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Blinco Enterprises Limited; 1st Defendant: Hu Hung Chiu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 January 2011
Case Number
HCA1299/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Recovery of Misappropriated Funds / Fiduciary/constructive Trust / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Extensions of Writ and to Set Aside Leave to Serve Out
Outcome
The third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ are set aside; the first extension and the grant of leave to serve out are not set aside.
Legal Topics
Extension of Writ, Material Non Disclosure, Service Out, Limitation Period, Constructive Trust, Fraudulent Concealment, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Limitation Law Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Private International Law Service Out of Jurisdiction Extension of Writ Material Non Disclosure Service Out +5 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Company Limited

1st Plaintiff

Blinco Enterprises Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Hu Hung Chiu

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Recovery of Misappropriated Funds / Fiduciary/constructive Trust / Interlocutory Application to Set Aside Extensions of Writ and to Set Aside Leave to Serve Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ should be set aside for lack of good reason
  2. 2 Whether the first extension and leave to serve out should be set aside for material non-disclosure
  3. 3 Whether Limitation Ordinance ss.20 or 26 apply to prevent time bar

Ratio Decidendi

The court found there was no good reason for the third, fourth and fifth extensions because the original justification (awaiting outcome of related jurisdictional proceedings) had ceased to exist and subsequent reasons relied on plaintiff convenience, cost-saving or unrelated proceedings were insufficient; accordingly the third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ are set aside. The court refused to set aside the first extension and leave to serve out for material non-disclosure, finding that the affirmations sufficiently implied the ancillary Taiwan proceedings and limitation issues were not blatantly evident as non-disclosed.

Court Disposition

The third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ are set aside; the first extension and the grant of leave to serve out are not set aside.

Orders

  • Third, fourth and fifth extensions of the writ set aside
  • First extension and leave to serve out upheld (not set aside)