RAMON L. SIY AND ANOTHER v. BPI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS

RAMON L. SIY AND ANOTHER v. BPI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS

The Master\'s orders (extension of writ under O.6 r.8(2) and leave under O.11 to serve out of jurisdiction) were set aside because the plaintiffs failed to show good or sufficient reason for the out-of-time extension, there was material non-disclosure and inaccurate information to the Master, and the extension would likely prejudice the 2nd Defendant by depriving it of arguable limitation defences and by imposing oppressive double litigation in Hong Kong rather than allowing the New York proceedings to proceed.

Citation
RAMON L. SIY AND ANOTHER v. BPI INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Ramon L. Siy; 2nd Plaintiff: Philip T. Ang; 1st Defendant: BPI International Finance Limited (formerly Ayala Finance (HK) Limited and Ayala International Finance Limited); 2nd Defendant: BPI Investment Corporation (formerly Ayala Investment & Development Corporation); 3rd Defendant: Joseph R. McMicking; 4th Defendant: Bertola A.G.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 June 1987
Case Number
HCA6659/1985
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Dispute (claims in Contract, Tort, Misrepresentation and Equity) / Interlocutory Chambers Hearing on Summons to Set Aside Master\'s Orders Extending Writ Validity Under O.6 R.8(2) and Granting Leave Under O.11 to Serve Out of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Both the Order extending the writ under O.6 r.8(2) and the Order granting leave under O.11 to serve the 2nd Defendant out of jurisdiction were set aside
Legal Topics
Extension of Writ Validity, Service Out of Jurisdiction (o.11), Statute of Limitations, Double Litigation/forum Non Conveniens, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Account and Equitable Compensation, Non Disclosure to Court
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Equity Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Limitation Law Misrepresentation Extension of Writ Validity +6 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramon L. Siy

1st Plaintiff

Philip T. Ang

2nd Plaintiff

BPI International Finance Limited (formerly Ayala Finance (HK) Limited and Ayala International Finance Limited)

1st Defendant

BPI Investment Corporation (formerly Ayala Investment & Development Corporation)

2nd Defendant

Joseph R. McMicking

3rd Defendant

Bertola A.G.

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Dispute (claims in Contract, Tort, Misrepresentation and Equity) / Interlocutory Chambers Hearing on Summons to Set Aside Master\'s Orders Extending Writ Validity Under O.6 R.8(2) and Granting Leave Under O.11 to Serve Out of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs showed good or sufficient reason to extend the writ under O.6 r.8(2) R.S.C.
  2. 2 Whether leave under O.11 to serve the 2nd defendant out of jurisdiction should be set aside
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs\' causes of action are statute-barred and whether defendants would be prejudiced by loss of limitation defences

Ratio Decidendi

The Master\'s orders (extension of writ under O.6 r.8(2) and leave under O.11 to serve out of jurisdiction) were set aside because the plaintiffs failed to show good or sufficient reason for the out-of-time extension, there was material non-disclosure and inaccurate information to the Master, and the extension would likely prejudice the 2nd Defendant by depriving it of arguable limitation defences and by imposing oppressive double litigation in Hong Kong rather than allowing the New York proceedings to proceed.

Court Disposition

Both the Order extending the writ under O.6 r.8(2) and the Order granting leave under O.11 to serve the 2nd Defendant out of jurisdiction were set aside

Orders

  • Order setting aside the extension of the writ validity granted under O.6 r.8(2) by the Master
  • Order setting aside the leave granted under O.11 to serve the 2nd Defendant out of jurisdiction