KWOK SIU MING, SIMON v. ROTHSCHILD BANK AG AND OTHERS

KWOK SIU MING, SIMON v. ROTHSCHILD BANK AG AND OTHERS

The summons to set aside the sealed November 1998 judgment was dismissed because the court was functus officio with no jurisdiction to vary a perfected sealed order and, on the merits, the applicant disclosed no sufficient grounds (including no probative fraud evidence) to warrant setting aside the judgment; dismissal was ordered with costs to the plaintiff to be taxed and paid on a common fund basis.

Citation
KWOK SIU MING, SIMON v. ROTHSCHILD BANK AG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Kwok Siu Ming, Simon; 1st Defendant: Rothschild Bank AG; 2nd Defendant: Huang Yuan Yuan, Ian; 3rd Defendant: Ang Su Wen, Pauline; 4th Defendant: Alidex Portfolio SA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 September 2005
Case Number
HCCL140/1997
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action No. 140 of 1997 (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside (dismissed)
Outcome
Application to set aside judgment dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Functus Officio, Constructive Trust, Costs, Adjournment, Legal Aid, Effect of Criminal Acquittal on Civil Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Enforcement Conflict of Laws Setting Aside Judgment Functus Officio Constructive Trust +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwok Siu Ming, Simon

Plaintiff

Rothschild Bank AG

1st Defendant

Huang Yuan Yuan, Ian

2nd Defendant

Ang Su Wen, Pauline

3rd Defendant

Alidex Portfolio SA

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action No. 140 of 1997 (high Court, Court of First Instance) / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction to set aside or vary a sealed judgment once perfected
  2. 2 Whether fresh evidence arising from a subsequent criminal trial (including acquittal) constituted grounds to set aside the civil judgment
  3. 3 Whether fraud on the part of the plaintiff was established so as to justify setting aside the judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The summons to set aside the sealed November 1998 judgment was dismissed because the court was functus officio with no jurisdiction to vary a perfected sealed order and, on the merits, the applicant disclosed no sufficient grounds (including no probative fraud evidence) to warrant setting aside the judgment; dismissal was ordered with costs to the plaintiff to be taxed and paid on a common fund basis.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Summons dated 18 March 2005 dismissed.
  • 2nd defendant to pay the plaintiff the costs of and occasioned by the application; if not agreed, costs to be taxed and paid on a common fund basis.