29 Feb 2024
The Court held the Beijing Rulings did not order the defendant to pay a sum of money within the meaning of s5(2)(e) Cap.597 and therefore were not registrable as Mainland judgments under the Ordinance; accordingly the registrations were set aside, while the other pleaded grounds for setting aside were rejected.
29 Feb 2024
The registrations were set aside because the Beijing Rulings do not, on their face and in context, constitute orders for payment of a sum of money within the meaning of s5(2)(e) of Cap.597; consequently the registration cannot stand. The court rejected the defendant's other grounds (no valid choice-of-court, contravention, not summoned, public policy, material non-disclosure) and directed costs allocation accordingly.
29 Feb 2024
The registrations were set aside because the Beijing Rulings do not order the payment of a sum of money within the meaning of s5(2)(e) of the Ordinance; consequently the Rulings are not Mainland judgments registrable under the Ordinance. Other challenged grounds were considered and rejected on their merits but were unnecessary to decide once s5(2)(e) ground succeeded.
11 Mar 2015
The correct construction of O.22 r.26 is that any sanctioned offer or sanctioned payment is presumed inclusive of interest up to the last date the offer could be accepted without leave; applying that rule, the plaintiff's offer of HK$2,800,000 exceeded the plaintiff's entitlement inclusive of interest to 24 July 2013, so O.22 r.24 does not apply and the application to vary the costs order nisi is dismissed with costs to the defendant.
14 Mar 2006
Court assessed the plaintiffs' best arguable case as $1,455,000 for the claim, accepted a 1.5 year period for interest and estimated likely costs at $400,000, and ordered aggregate security of $2,000,000 with staged payments; sale pendente lite was restrained while security complied with and will take effect on failure to pay as ordered.
14 Jan 2005
The court accepted and applied the parties' contractual agreed default interest rates to the stated principal sums for the period from 1 July 1999 to the date of judgment, awarding interest of HK$14,844,715.16; post-judgment interest ordered at the usual judgment rate.
8 Jun 2004
The clause stipulating $3,000 per day was a penalty and therefore unenforceable; the plaintiff proved actual losses for delayed performance and was awarded compensatory damages totalling $159,434 together with interest (8% from specific dates and judgment debt rate thereafter) and costs of $21,600 to be paid by the defendant.
28 Jun 2001
The payment into court on 26 January 2000 was the operative act for costs assessment; the 9 September 1997 offer had been expressly withdrawn and could not be revived by the later payment; because the plaintiff's award inclusive of interest up to the date of payment into court exceeded the sum paid into court, the plaintiff was entitled to costs and the defendant's application to vary the costs order nisi was refused.
18 May 2001
On the evidence the plaintiff was running sustained deficits and received advances from the holding company and related entities which were used to pay management and ferry expenses; therefore the sums claimed represent reimbursement to the plaintiff (not funds of owners) and are recoverable; the contract (DMC) authorises a $300 collection charge and registration expenses as recoverable items and interest and indemnity costs are appropriate in the circumstances, so judgment for the plaintiff is entered with specified interest and indemnity costs.
1 Aug 1997
The Escrow Agreement was a temporary mechanism to permit blank-dated drafts to be signed until interest and amounts were ascertained; the defendant assented to the repayment schedule at the Paris meeting so the bills were validly completed and negotiated, entitling the Plaintiffs to judgment on the dishonoured bills and on the guarantee after deducting the cash deposit; interest awarded on principal at 8% and costs on party-and-party basis.