CONCORD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YUEN MOON CHUEN AND ANOTHER

                 HCA 17217/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 17217 OF 1999

BETWEEN

	CONCORD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED formerly known as CONCORD OIL HOLDING LIMITED	Plaintiff
	and
	YUEN MOON CHUEN	1st Defendant
	YUEN CHING YIN	2nd Defendant

Before : Hon Sakhrani J in Chambers

Date of Hearing : 11 November 2005

Date of Decision : 11 November 2005

 

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1. On the 1^st defendant’s summons, the parties have come to terms with the undertaking given to the court by the plaintiff’s solicitors on behalf of the plaintiff, as has been given to me by Mr. Chan on behalf of the plaintiff namely, an undertaking by the plaintiff that until trial or further order that the plaintiff shall restrain itself, its officers, servants, agents or debt-collecting agents (if any) from using any threatening or unlawful means to collect the amount(s) claimed in this action from the defendants.  It is accepted by the 1^st defendant that with that undertaking a consent order can be made that the 1^st defendant’s summons be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore and that there be liberty to apply generally and in respect of the execution of the above undertaking.  The undertaking given by the plaintiff is, of course, without prejudice to the respective contentions to the parties. 

2. The only matter in dispute is the question of costs of the 1^st defendant’s summons.  The 1^st defendant asks for costs of the summons.  The plaintiff says that costs should be in the cause. 

3. I have pointed out to the 1^st defendant that no cause of action has been pleaded in the counterclaim of the 1^st defendant in respect of the activities of debt-collecting agents employed by the plaintiff and that if he wishes to pursue this matter, he will have to amend his counterclaim to plead this cause of action with the appropriate relief.  That has not been done yet.  Also, the 1^st defendant accepts that his affirmation is devoid of particulars of the wrongful activities complained of.

4. It seems to me, in the circumstances, it is right and proper that the costs should be in the cause.  This does not prejudice either party as the costs will be determined eventually, and I order that the costs of the 1^st defendant’s summons be costs in the cause.

 

 

(Arjan H. Sakhrani) Judge of the Court of First Instance, High Court

Mr Alex Chan of Messrs Chui & Lau, solicitors for the Plaintiff

The 1^st Defendant, in person