SUBASH CHANDRA and Another v. MICHAEL JOHNSON

SUBASH CHANDRA and Another v. MICHAEL JOHNSON

The application to discharge the prohibition order was dismissed because the plaintiffs established prima facie liability arising on 6 December 1993, the procedural omissions did not demonstrate bad faith or prejudice, and the statutory conditions under s.21B(3)(a),(c),(d) were satisfied; however the court varied the order to reduce the payment condition so the defendant is not effectively deprived of the opportunity to obtain leave to defend.

Citation
SUBASH CHANDRA and Another v. MICHAEL JOHNSON
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Subash Chandra; 2nd Plaintiff: Rubies Overseas Ltd; Defendant: Michael Johnson
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 April 1996
Case Number
HCA900/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil (prohibition Order / Leave to Defend) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge/variation of Prohibition Order; Chambers Hearing and Ruling
Outcome
Application dismissed; prohibition order of 30 March 1996 varied.
Legal Topics
Prohibition Order, Leave to Defend, S.21 B(3)(b)(i), Service of Process, Variation of Order, Security for Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Injunctions Security for Costs Jurisdiction Prohibition Order Leave to Defend S.21 B(3)(b)(i) Service of Process +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Subash Chandra

1st Plaintiff

Rubies Overseas Ltd

2nd Plaintiff

Michael Johnson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (prohibition Order / Leave to Defend) / Interlocutory Application to Discharge/variation of Prohibition Order; Chambers Hearing and Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prohibition order should be discharged for failure to serve and communicate variations to the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the court had jurisdiction under s.21B(3)(b)(i) given the condition for liability
  3. 3 Whether the defendant would be deprived of the right to defend because prohibition prevents him earning funds overseas to meet instalment conditions

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the prohibition order was dismissed because the plaintiffs established prima facie liability arising on 6 December 1993, the procedural omissions did not demonstrate bad faith or prejudice, and the statutory conditions under s.21B(3)(a),(c),(d) were satisfied; however the court varied the order to reduce the payment condition so the defendant is not effectively deprived of the opportunity to obtain leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; prohibition order of 30 March 1996 varied.

Orders

  • Application to discharge the Order of Leonard J dated 30 March 1996 is dismissed.
  • The Order of Leonard J dated 30 March 1996 prohibiting the Defendant from leaving Hong Kong is varied: the Order shall lapse after one month from 30 March 1996 (unless extended or renewed) and shall have no effect if (i) the defendant pays into Court US$50,000 (or equivalent in HK$) in accordance with paragraph 1(a)...