19 Apr 2024
The Court of Appeal held that the appellants' appeal was arguable but not so strong as to justify an unconditional stay; balancing the risk of prejudice, the proper exercise of discretion was to grant a stay of execution on condition that the judgment sums be paid into court, with costs reserved (order nisi that costs be in the cause).
15 Jun 2018
Because the plaintiff is a foreign administrator with no known assets in Hong Kong and the appeal would likely be rendered nugatory if the judgment were enforced, the Court granted a stay of execution pending appeal conditional on the defendant paying US$12,000,000 into court within 21 days; the plaintiff's solicitor's undertaking was insufficient to protect the appeal and balancing of interests required payment into court.
25 May 2016
The appeal was allowed and the statement of claim struck out because the prior Calcutta judgment on the letter of credit between the same parties in the same capacities was final and conclusive; therefore the Hong Kong proceedings (both the direct letter of credit claim and the attempt to enforce the PRC judgment) constituted an abuse of process barred by res judicata, and any issues of inspection or release of the funds must be determined by the Calcutta court.
31 May 1996
The Court of Appeal found the judge below had misapprehended material facts (treating the Illinois judgment as against the 2nd defendant and over-relying on the connection with the 1st defendant), held that security for costs should have been ordered in the circumstances, allowed the appeal, set aside the order of Sears J and remitted assessment of the amount of additional security to the High Court.
10 Mar 1993
Because execution on the US judgment was stayed, the judgment debt was not immediately due and payable and the petition based on that judgment was therefore no longer maintainable; permitting a substantive amendment to replace the stayed judgment with a contract claim for future royalties would improperly circumvent the contract's US jurisdiction clause and convert the Companies Court into a forum for contested contractual disputes, so leave to amend was refused and the petition struck out; costs after the date the petition became unmaintainable were ordered against the petitioner.
23 Jul 1992
The court held that the Plaintiff's claimed juridical advantage (ability to execute on assets in both jurisdictions) did not justify concurrent proceedings because enforcement routes exist (action in Hong Kong on PRC judgment and summary judgment procedure) and the balancing exercise favoured requiring an election; accordingly the Plaintiff was restrained from prosecuting the PRC proceedings and ordered to proceed in Hong Kong, with costs on an indemnity basis.