AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LTD. v. WOO SHIN TAK

HCA010047/1999

HCA 10047/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 10047 OF 1999

-------------------------

BETWEEN
	AIR-SPRUNG (HONG KONG) LIMITED	Plaintiff
	AND
	WOO SHIN TAK	Defendant

--------------

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chamber

Date of Hearing: 16 December 1999

Date of Judgment: 16 December 1999

 

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

 

1. This is an appeal by the defendant from a refusal by the master to grant a stay of proceedings. The appeal brought by the defendant is on the basis that there was a compromise reached between the parties, with the result that this action, which had been brought, should be stayed by the court because it is vexatious or an abuse of process of the court to allow this action to proceed.

2. I think the affidavits filed by the parties, especially the affidavit filed by the plaintiff, made it very clear that there is a serious dispute between the parties as to even the existence of the alleged compromise, let alone the terms thereof. The skeleton argument of counsel for the plaintiff, especially in paragraph 6 in the form of the two columns, shows quite clearly the extent of the dispute, and the extent of the plaintiff's series of complaints and prejudice of the damage done to the plaintiff's premises by reason of the defendant's lack of actions.

3. I have no doubt that this is not a suitable case for the granting of the court's discretionary remedy of staying the proceedings which has, of course, the effect of stopping the plaintiff's action altogether. In my view it is an abuse of the process for the defendant to resort to this kind of application in an attempt to stop the proceedings. The action should be carried on as quickly as possible. I therefore dismiss the defendant's appeal with costs to be assessed by me now by way of a gross sum assessment under Order 63, rule 9(4)(b).

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr Ling Chun Wai, instructed by M/s Leonard K.L. Heung & Co., for the Defendant

Mr Clement Lee, instructed by M/s W.K. To & Co., for the Plaintiff