CHINA NONFERROUS METALS (HONG KONG) FINANCE CO LTD (In Liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. SOUTH-EAST ASIA INVESTMENT HOLDING CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the liquidators amounting to abuse of process, the court found no real risk that a fair trial is impossible and the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to justify striking out; accordingly the striking out application was dismissed, the summary judgment application was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and directions and additional security for costs were ordered to ensure expeditious conduct.
- 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
- 31 July 2012
- Case Number
- HCCL20/2002
- Procedural Posture
- Commercial Action No 20 of 2002 / Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution (decision)
- Outcome
- application to strike out dismissed; summary judgment application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Strike Out for Want of Prosecution, Abuse of Process, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Liquidation, Delay
- 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 / Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution (decision)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2001 Action should be struck out for want of prosecution due to inordinate delay and abuse of process
- 2 Whether the delay caused prejudice making a fair trial impossible
- 3 Whether summary judgment application should be allowed given delay and conduct
Ratio Decidendi
Although there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the liquidators amounting to abuse of process, the court found no real risk that a fair trial is impossible and the defendants had not demonstrated sufficient prejudice to justify striking out; accordingly the striking out application was dismissed, the summary judgment application was dismissed for failure to prosecute, and directions and additional security for costs were ordered to ensure expeditious conduct.
Court Disposition
application to strike out dismissed; summary judgment application dismissed
Orders
- Order dismissing summary judgment application with costs to the Company and the Director
- Parties to submit agreed directions within 7 days of decision for filing Defence, discovery and exchange of witness statements and further conduct
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