EDWARD SEKY SOERYADJAYA and Another v. VICKERS BALLAS HONG KONG LTD. and Others

EDWARD SEKY SOERYADJAYA and Another v. VICKERS BALLAS HONG KONG LTD. and Others

The court has jurisdiction to vary an undertaking to fortify where good grounds exist, defined as a significant change of circumstances. Applying that test here, the judge found sufficient change (shortened duration of restraint, changed parties/interests, and reduced risk to defendants) to justify reducing the fortification to US$5,000,000 but not to discharge the undertaking or to order repayment of the US$5,000,000 already paid into court.

Citation
EDWARD SEKY SOERYADJAYA and Another v. VICKERS BALLAS HONG KONG LTD. and Others
Parties
First Plaintiff: Edward Seky Soeryadjaya; Second Plaintiff: Pacific Communications Limited; First Defendant: Vickers Ballas Hong Kong Limited; Second Defendant: NTI Resources Limited; Third Defendant: Wong Chin Yong; Fourth Defendant: Georgia Technologies Limited; Fifth Defendant: Seaunion Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 December 1996
Case Number
HCA11360/1996
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Variation of Undertaking as to Damages / Chambers Hearing on Summons to Vary/discharge Fortification Following Discharge/reinstatement of Interlocutory Injunctions
Outcome
Application to be relieved entirely from obligation to fortify refused; application for payment out of US$5,000,000 refused; plaintiffs' obligation to fortify reduced so that security need not exceed US$5,000,000.
Legal Topics
Undertaking as to Damages, Fortification of Security, Variation of Interlocutory Orders, Balance of Convenience
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Equity Injunctive Relief Security for Undertakings/damages Undertaking as to Damages Fortification of Security Variation of Interlocutory Orders Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Seky Soeryadjaya

First Plaintiff

Pacific Communications Limited

Second Plaintiff

Vickers Ballas Hong Kong Limited

First Defendant

NTI Resources Limited

Second Defendant

Wong Chin Yong

Third Defendant

Georgia Technologies Limited

Fourth Defendant

Seaunion Holdings Limited

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Injunction and Variation of Undertaking as to Damages / Chambers Hearing on Summons to Vary/discharge Fortification Following Discharge/reinstatement of Interlocutory Injunctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court can require fortification/security for an undertaking to pay damages to remain or be varied after an injunction has been discharged
  2. 2 Whether the court has a discretion to modify the amount of previously directed fortification in light of a change in circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court has jurisdiction to vary an undertaking to fortify where good grounds exist, defined as a significant change of circumstances. Applying that test here, the judge found sufficient change (shortened duration of restraint, changed parties/interests, and reduced risk to defendants) to justify reducing the fortification to US$5,000,000 but not to discharge the undertaking or to order repayment of the US$5,000,000 already paid into court.

Court Disposition

Application to be relieved entirely from obligation to fortify refused; application for payment out of US$5,000,000 refused; plaintiffs' obligation to fortify reduced so that security need not exceed US$5,000,000.

Orders

  • Application that plaintiffs be relieved of obligation to fortify refused
  • Application that US$5,000,000 paid into court be paid out to first plaintiff refused