25 Feb 1999
ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV250/1998
Roe was not entitled to interplead because it retained a substantial financial interest in the subject-matter (the 80% shareholding and shareholders' loan) and was not in possession or in a position to transfer the subject-matter as required by Order 17; consequently the interpleader was improper, Yam J's reliance on O.17 was wrong, the permanent stay was set aside, and the issues of liability for delayed transfer and quantum of damages must be remitted to the trial judge for determination.