DANTAS LTD v. OXFORD PROPERTIES & FINANCE LTD

DANTAS LTD v. OXFORD PROPERTIES & FINANCE LTD

Dantas was entitled to interpleader relief and may have the question of entitlement to rent stated and tried under Order 17 r.5; the Master's order requiring payment of rent into court pending the main proceedings was not appropriate because the main proceedings would not determine the rent entitlement; Grolier's summons was dismissed because it was not the appropriate procedural form in the circumstances.

Citation
DANTAS LTD v. OXFORD PROPERTIES & FINANCE LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (action No.8540/84); Claimant (mp No.1817/85): Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association; 1st Defendant (action No.8540/84); Defendant (mp No.1817/85): Oxford Properties & Finance Limited; 2nd Defendant (action No.8540/84): James S. Lee & Company (Kowloon) Limited; Applicant (action No.8540/84): Grolier International, Inc.; Plaintiff (mp No.1817/85): Dantas Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 September 1985
Case Number
HCMP1817/1985
Procedural Posture
Interpleader Application Arising From Mortgage/possession Proceedings / Appeal From Master's Interlocutory Order; Interlocutory Applications (interpleader)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and allowed for Dantas; Master's order set aside as inappropriate; Grolier's application dismissed for wrong procedural form; Dantas entitled to have issue between claimants stated and tried.
Legal Topics
Interpleader, Entitlement to Rent, Payment Into Court, Procedural Form of Application, Summary Determination
Source Language
EN
Property Civil Procedure Equity Mortgages Interpleader Entitlement to Rent Payment Into Court Procedural Form of Application +1 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association

Plaintiff (action No.8540/84); Claimant (mp No.1817/85)

Oxford Properties & Finance Limited

1st Defendant (action No.8540/84); Defendant (mp No.1817/85)

James S. Lee & Company (Kowloon) Limited

2nd Defendant (action No.8540/84)

Grolier International, Inc.

Applicant (action No.8540/84)

Dantas Limited

Plaintiff (mp No.1817/85)

Procedural Posture

Interpleader Application Arising From Mortgage/possession Proceedings / Appeal From Master's Interlocutory Order; Interlocutory Applications (interpleader)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether tenants (Dantas and Grolier) were entitled to interpleader relief
  2. 2 Whether the Master's order for rent to be paid into court was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether Grolier's summons in the pending action was the correct procedural form or whether originating summons was required

Ratio Decidendi

Dantas was entitled to interpleader relief and may have the question of entitlement to rent stated and tried under Order 17 r.5; the Master's order requiring payment of rent into court pending the main proceedings was not appropriate because the main proceedings would not determine the rent entitlement; Grolier's summons was dismissed because it was not the appropriate procedural form in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and allowed for Dantas; Master's order set aside as inappropriate; Grolier's application dismissed for wrong procedural form; Dantas entitled to have issue between claimants stated and tried.

Orders

  • Appeal against Master's order allowed insofar as it ordered payment into court pending resolution of the main action which would not decide entitlement to rent
  • Dantas permitted to have the issue between claimants stated and tried under Order 17 r.5