CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
The application for a stay was dismissed because the defendants' appeal did not have a strong likelihood of success (being an appeal against judicial discretion), the defendants offered no adequate evidence of irrecoverable financial prejudice despite the plaintiffs having provided security for costs totalling $1,200,000, and a stay or vacating trial dates would prejudice trial preparedness and cause unjustified delay.
- Citation
- CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (In Liquidation); 2nd Plaintiff: CHINA NONFERROUS METALS GROUP (HONG KONG) LIMITED (In Liquidation); 1st Defendant: SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: NG HON LEUNG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 2 January 2013
- Case Number
- HCCL20/2002
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Action No 20 of 2002 / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal; Trial Fixed to Commence 3 June 2013
- Outcome
- Application for stay of execution dismissed; alternative application to vacate trial dates refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Execution, Strike Out, Leave to Appeal, Security for Costs, Trial Scheduling
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED (In Liquidation)
1st Plaintiff
CHINA NONFERROUS METALS GROUP (HONG KONG) LIMITED (In Liquidation)
2nd Plaintiff
SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING COMPANY LIMITED
1st Defendant
NG HON LEUNG
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action No 20 of 2002 / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Execution Pending Appeal; Trial Fixed to Commence 3 June 2013
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a stay of execution should be granted pending an appeal
- 2 Whether trial dates should be vacated pending the appeal
- 3 Whether the defendants have shown a strong likelihood of success on appeal
Ratio Decidendi
The application for a stay was dismissed because the defendants' appeal did not have a strong likelihood of success (being an appeal against judicial discretion), the defendants offered no adequate evidence of irrecoverable financial prejudice despite the plaintiffs having provided security for costs totalling $1,200,000, and a stay or vacating trial dates would prejudice trial preparedness and cause unjustified delay.
Court Disposition
Application for stay of execution dismissed; alternative application to vacate trial dates refused; costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
Orders
- Application for stay dismissed
- Alternative application to vacate trial dates 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