27 Jun 2016
YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- YEUNG YAT KWONG PETER v. HARVEST CHINA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
- Court
- District Court
- Case number
- DCCJ3018/2014
The summons was dismissed because paragraph 8 of the consent order concerned only the plaintiff and the 1st defendant so the 2nd defendant lacked locus to re-open it; the sealed consent order is binding and the court, being functus officio, will not vary it on the asserted basis of lack of internal authority; any grievance lies against the manager or former solicitors; inherent jurisdiction did not justify reopening the order; costs awarded to plaintiff and 1st defendant on an indemnity basis.