REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

The pre-judgment prohibition order became academic upon entry of interlocutory judgment and was discharged; section 21B(1) of the High Court Ordinance is not inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance; and there was probable cause to believe the 2nd defendant would leave Hong Kong if not prohibited given his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
REM ASSETS LTD v. MIR INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: REM ASSETS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MIR INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CORRADO RICCIO
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 December 2008
Case Number
HCA626/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil: Prohibition Order (pre and Post Judgment) / Application to Discharge Prohibition Orders and Related Appeal; Interlocutory Judgment Entered
Outcome
Applications by the 2nd defendant dismissed; appeal against Master Wong's decision dismissed as academic; pre-judgment prohibition order discharged by interlocutory judgment; post-judgment prohibition order retained.
Legal Topics
Prohibition Order, Freedom of Movement, Bills of Rights Ordinance, Interlocutory Judgment, Probable Cause to Believe Departure Imminent
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Enforcement Constitutional/human Rights Prohibition Order Freedom of Movement Bills of Rights Ordinance Interlocutory Judgment Probable Cause to Believe Departure Imminent

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REM ASSETS LIMITED

Plaintiff

MIR INVESTMENTS LIMITED

1st Defendant

CORRADO RICCIO

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Prohibition Order (pre and Post Judgment) / Application to Discharge Prohibition Orders and Related Appeal; Interlocutory Judgment Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pre-judgment prohibition order became academic after interlocutory judgment
  2. 2 Whether court had jurisdiction to make a second prohibition order after extension
  3. 3 Whether Bills of Rights Ordinance (BORO) renders section 21B(1) inconsistent with freedom of movement

Ratio Decidendi

The pre-judgment prohibition order became academic upon entry of interlocutory judgment and was discharged; section 21B(1) of the High Court Ordinance is not inconsistent with the Bills of Rights Ordinance; and there was probable cause to believe the 2nd defendant would leave Hong Kong if not prohibited given his lack of ties, delocalised residences and the interlocutory judgment with likely substantial damages, so the post-judgment prohibition order should be maintained.

Court Disposition

Applications by the 2nd defendant dismissed; appeal against Master Wong's decision dismissed as academic; pre-judgment prohibition order discharged by interlocutory judgment; post-judgment prohibition order retained.

Orders

  • Appeal against Master Wong dismissed as academic
  • Application to discharge the post-judgment prohibition order dismissed