SO PO TONG v. RICHARD PATTERSON
The application for a prohibition order was refused because the evidence was insufficient to show a real risk of the defendant absconding and the delay in making the application constituted an abuse of the procedure for obtaining such an order.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SO PO TONG v. RICHARD PATTERSON
- Parties
- Intended Plaintiff: So Po Tong; Intended Defendant: Richard Patterson
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 9 October 1987
- Case Number
- HCA6993/1987
- Procedural Posture
- Intended Action (hca 6993/87) / Chambers Hearing — Application for Prohibition Order
- Outcome
- Application refused
- Legal Topics
- Prohibition Order, Abuse of Process, Flight Risk, Evidentiary Sufficiency
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
So Po Tong
Intended Plaintiff
Richard Patterson
Intended Defendant
Procedural Posture
Intended Action (hca 6993/87) / Chambers Hearing — Application for Prohibition Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a prohibition order should be granted to prevent the intended defendant leaving Hong Kong
- 2 Whether the evidence demonstrates a real risk that the defendant will abscond to avoid judgment
- 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of process owing to delay or inadequate evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a prohibition order was refused because the evidence was insufficient to show a real risk of the defendant absconding and the delay in making the application constituted an abuse of the procedure for obtaining such an order.
Court Disposition
Application refused
Orders
- Application for prohibition order refused.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment