FOSHAN CITY COMMERCIAL BANK v. CHEN YONG YI AND OTHERS

FOSHAN CITY COMMERCIAL BANK v. CHEN YONG YI AND OTHERS

Because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the unless order and did not seek an extension or set-aside, the action was properly dismissed under the terms of that order; as a consequence the Mareva injunction should be discharged and the Plaintiff's cross-undertaking in damages may be enforced; an adjournment was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
FOSHAN CITY COMMERCIAL BANK v. CHEN YONG YI AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendants: Defendants; Intervener: Intervener (Secretary for Justice)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 February 2002
Case Number
HCA15922/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Mareva Injunction and Related Costs Enforcement / Post Judgment Enforcement Application to Discharge Mareva Order and Enforce Cross Undertaking After Dismissal for Non Compliance With an Unless Order
Outcome
Adjournment refused; action dismissed for non-compliance with unless order; Mareva injunction discharged; Plaintiff's cross-undertaking in damages to be enforced; costs to be paid by Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Unless Order, Dismissal for Non Compliance, Cross Undertaking in Damages, Security for Costs
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Costs Enforcement Mareva Injunction Unless Order Dismissal for Non Compliance Cross Undertaking in Damages +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendants

Defendants

Intervener (Secretary for Justice)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Mareva Injunction and Related Costs Enforcement / Post Judgment Enforcement Application to Discharge Mareva Order and Enforce Cross Undertaking After Dismissal for Non Compliance With an Unless Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjournment should be granted to Plaintiff to respond to enforcement application
  2. 2 Whether Mareva injunction should be discharged following dismissal for non-compliance with an unless order
  3. 3 Whether Plaintiff's cross-undertaking in damages should be enforced

Ratio Decidendi

Because the Plaintiff failed to comply with the unless order and did not seek an extension or set-aside, the action was properly dismissed under the terms of that order; as a consequence the Mareva injunction should be discharged and the Plaintiff's cross-undertaking in damages may be enforced; an adjournment was refused because no valid reason for non-compliance or delay was shown.

Court Disposition

Adjournment refused; action dismissed for non-compliance with unless order; Mareva injunction discharged; Plaintiff's cross-undertaking in damages to be enforced; costs to be paid by Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Adjournment of Defendants' application refused
  • Action dismissed for non-compliance with the unless order (order dated 5 February 2002)