HO WING CHEONG t/a HONG LEONG SECURITIES AND OTHERS v. GRAHAM MARGOT AND ANOTHER
HTML content
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
1987, No. 78
(Civil)
BETWEEN
| HO WING CHEONG (trading as HONG LEONG SECURITIES) | 1st Plaintiff |
| HONG LEONG OVERSEAS (H.K.) LIMITED | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| HONG LEONG SECURITIES LIMITED | 3rd Plaintiff | |
| and | ||
| GRAHAM MARGOT | 1st Defendant | |
| NORMAN NG | 2nd Defendant |
__________________
Coram: Hon. Cons. V.-P., Fuad & Hunter, JJ.A.
Date of hearing: 30th June 1987
Date of delivery of Judgment: 30th June 1987
__________________
JUDGMENT
__________________
Cons, V.-P.:
1. This is an appeal from an injunction granted by Godfrey J. on the 23rd of this month whereby he restrained the 1st Defendant from causing or permitting the completion of an agreement for sale and purchase of particular premises of South Bay Gardens. These are owned by a company called "R.I.S. Consultants Limited" and the proposed sale was to one Snaefell Enterprises Limited.
2. The order was apparently granted on the suggestion that the proposed sale would be at an undervalue, thereby in effect disposing of the assets of the 1st Defendant, who controls B.I.S. Consultants, in contravention of a post-judgment undertaking given by him. We understand that the judge gave no express reasons for his decision, although he had been in dialogue with counsel during the course of the argument. However having seen the affidavits filed before him, I have no reason to think that his decision was based on wrong principles or was plainly wrong.
3. The argument that the Judge ignored the proper status quo seems to me to refer more to who is going to live in the property in the future than to the real matters at issue. We understand that in any event who was going to live there was not a matter raised in any way before the judge.
4. For my part I would dismiss the appea1.
(D. Cons) |
Fuad, J.A.
5. I agree. I am not persuaded that the learned judge erred in any way in the exercise of his discretion, and speaking for myself I think I would probably have come to the same decision.
(K.T. Fuad) |
Hunter, J.A.
6. I agree. The only issue before the judge, as I see it, was one of value, whether the proposed sale was a sale at an undervalue or a sale at full market value. The judge's order, which was on1y to last to the end of July, seems to me to have been carefully put together. He made the order in the knowledge that the bank was due to obtain possession of the property on the 1st July or thereabouts, and since the order was going to run only until the 30th July in the expectation that the bank would put the property on the market as soon as it got possession. Then the issue would be resolved by market forces and not by a decision on affidavits from surveyors. I can see no basis for interfering with the judge's discretion.
| (D.S. Hunter) |
N. de Boinville (M/s Robin Bridge & John Liu) for 1st Defendant/Appellant
R.J. Faulkner (M/s Slaughter & May) for Plaintiffs/Respondents