FANLING PROPERTY CO LTD v. LEADER HONOUR LTD

FANLING PROPERTY CO LTD v. LEADER HONOUR LTD

The court held that the defendant had not shown good cause to be released from its undertaking or to withdraw the sum paid into court; the plaintiff's delay, alleged non-disclosure and the purported new evidence were not material or sufficient to make it unjust to hold the defendant to its payment into court; accordingly the discharge application was dismissed and the defendant was not permitted to withdraw the funds.

Citation
FANLING PROPERTY CO LTD v. LEADER HONOUR LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (dccj 3214); Defendant (dccj 5342): Leader Honour Limited; Defendant (dccj 3214); Plaintiff (dccj 5342): Fanling Property Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Case Number
DCCJ5342/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Concerning Injunction/undertaking and Related Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory/chamber Hearing on Discharge Summons and Related Applications
Outcome
Discharge summons dismissed; defendant not permitted to withdraw funds paid into court; strike-out and consolidation summonses dealt with by consent
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunction, Undertaking to the Court, Payment Into Court, Withdrawal of Security, Consent Orders, Non Disclosure, Service of Writ
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Equity Commercial Law Freezing Injunction Undertaking to the Court Payment Into Court Withdrawal of Security +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leader Honour Limited

Plaintiff (dccj 3214); Defendant (dccj 5342)

Fanling Property Company Limited

Defendant (dccj 3214); Plaintiff (dccj 5342)

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings Concerning Injunction/undertaking and Related Interlocutory Applications / Interlocutory/chamber Hearing on Discharge Summons and Related Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte injunction should be discharged
  2. 2 Whether the defendant should be permitted to withdraw HK$725,800 paid into court as security/undertaking
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff's delay in issuing writ, alleged non-disclosure and new evidence constitute good cause to release the undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant had not shown good cause to be released from its undertaking or to withdraw the sum paid into court; the plaintiff's delay, alleged non-disclosure and the purported new evidence were not material or sufficient to make it unjust to hold the defendant to its payment into court; accordingly the discharge application was dismissed and the defendant was not permitted to withdraw the funds.

Court Disposition

Discharge summons dismissed; defendant not permitted to withdraw funds paid into court; strike-out and consolidation summonses dealt with by consent

Orders

  • Discharge summons dismissed in its entirety
  • Application by defendant to withdraw HK$725,800 paid into court refused