MICHAEL ELLIS v. TERESA ANNE HOLLADAY

HCA008811A/2000

HCA8811/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.8811 OF 2000

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

BETWEEN
	MICHAEL ELLIS	Plaintiff
	AND
	TERESA ANNE HOLLADAY	Defendant

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 26 October 2000

Date of Judgment: 26 October 2000

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

1. I have before me a summons for injunction preventing and restraining the defendant/judgment debtor from dissipating her assets. The Consent Order has been placed before me where everything else had been agreed except in relation to item (2) of the Proviso, that is to say, how much in the Mareva Order should be exempted to enable the defendant debtor from being able to spend certain sums of money.

2. There are three categories under Proviso (2) : the first category is $50,000 of legal advice, there is no dispute on this, so I would allow this. There is a monthly sum of $100,000 towards her and her son's ordinary and proper living expenses. Having regard to the schedule put before me, I think it is reasonable and I allow this. There is also a third sum of $100,000 per month towards her ordinary and proper business expenses. I regard this as not a permissible expense which should be exempted from the Mareva, which is a Mareva-in-aid of execution of judgment under which there is already obligation of the judgment debtor, the defendant, to pay all monies owned by her to the creditor. They plaintiff creditor is trying to locate her assets, and that is why there are other provisions in the Consent Order to enable the plaintiff to do so.

3. In these circumstances, I think Proviso (2) in the draft Consent Order should have deleted from it the further sum of $100,000 per month towards her ordinary and proper business expenses. Save for that, I make an order in terms of that Consent Order.

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr John Beukema of Messrs Littlewoods, for the Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor

Mr Ling Chun Wai, instructed by Messrs Horvath & Giles, for the Defendant/Judgment Debtor

 

HCA008811/2000

HCA8811/2000

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.8811 OF 2000

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

BETWEEN
	MICHAEL ELLIS	Plaintiff
	AND
	TERESA ANNE HOLLADAY	Defendant

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

Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 22 September 2000

Date of Judgment: 22 September 2000

 

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

J U D G M E N T

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

 

1. I have before me a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant for the sum of $939,293.95, being the balance of sums due by the defendant to the plaintiff in respect of seven promissory notes pleaded in the Amended Statement of Claim.

2. Two causes of action are relied upon by the plaintiff : one is pursuant to the promissory notes and the other is in respect of the loans made by the plaintiff to the defendant under the seven promissory notes. Affidavits have been filed and put before the court, and the history of this matter, of course, is well known to the parties and to some extent to this court, having dealt with this matter previously in another setting. I have no doubt that both causes of action are properly put before the court and that the defendant admitted that she is indebted to the plaintiff in respect of those two causes of action.

3. There is simply no defence. Although the plaintiff has taken out Order 14 which will be returnable in early October, I think the matter does not need to wait for the return day of the Order 14 summons. I therefore order that judgment be entered against the defendant in the amount of $939,293.59 plus interest at 10.5% per annum. It is further ordered that costs of the action, including costs of the application for judgment, be to the plaintiff in the amount of $35,000.00, assessed by way of gross sum under Order 62, rule 9(4)(b).

 

 

 

Representation:

Mr John Beukema of Messrs Littlewoods, for the Plaintiff

Mr Ling Chun Wai instructed by Messrs Horvath & Giles, for the Defendant