23 May 1995
ETABLISSEMENT AMRA v. YIU YAU PING
- Citation
- ETABLISSEMENT AMRA v. YIU YAU PING
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA374/1995
The Order 14 application was hopeless because the plaintiff and its legal advisers must have known of an arguable defence under the Money Lenders Ordinance; accordingly the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs of the Order 14 application (not payable forthwith). The Mareva injunction should be continued because the plaintiff demonstrated a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation; a discovery order ancillary to the injunction is necessary (compliance within 14 days); security for costs is refused; plaintiff's undertaking as to damages accepted on the evidence available.