823 INVESTMENT LTD v. RICHLY BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD

823 INVESTMENT LTD v. RICHLY BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD

The court held that the consent judgment ordering Richly Bright to pay a specified sum described as an 'indemnity' is properly read as an order for payment of a quantified sum; once liability is so established and the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor under a judgment, O.49 r.1 is satisfied and a garnishee order absolute can include the indemnity sum so ordered, therefore the appeal is allowed and the Master’s refusal to order payment of the indemnity sum was set aside.

Citation
823 INVESTMENT LTD v. RICHLY BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/judgment Creditor: 823 Investment Limited; Defendant/judgment Debtor: Richly Bright International Limited; Garnishee: De Monsa Investments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 September 2013
Case Number
HCA1452/2010
Procedural Posture
Garnishee Proceedings to Enforce Judgment / Appeal From Master's Garnishee Order (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Garnishee Order, Indemnity Payment, Consent Judgment Interpretation, Order 49 Rule 1 Rules of the High Court
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Enforcement of Judgments Contract (indemnity) Equity Garnishee Order Indemnity Payment Consent Judgment Interpretation Order 49 Rule 1 Rules of the High Court

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

823 Investment Limited

Plaintiff/judgment Creditor

Richly Bright International Limited

Defendant/judgment Debtor

De Monsa Investments Limited

Garnishee

Procedural Posture

Garnishee Proceedings to Enforce Judgment / Appeal From Master's Garnishee Order (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an indemnity ordered in a prior judgment, not yet paid to the third party, can be recovered directly by the indemnified via garnishee proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the consent judgment ordering Richly Bright to pay an indemnity constitutes an order for payment enabling garnishee relief under O.49 r.1
  3. 3 Whether liability under an indemnity must be triggered by payment or demand before a garnishee order can attach

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the consent judgment ordering Richly Bright to pay a specified sum described as an 'indemnity' is properly read as an order for payment of a quantified sum; once liability is so established and the garnishee is indebted to the judgment debtor under a judgment, O.49 r.1 is satisfied and a garnishee order absolute can include the indemnity sum so ordered, therefore the appeal is allowed and the Master’s refusal to order payment of the indemnity sum was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed and the orders sought in the notice of appeal dated 24 April 2013 are granted
  • Order that De Monsa Investments Limited pay to 823 Investment Limited the indemnity sum of $8,704,210.50 (as ordered in HCA 1452/2010)