INABATA SANGYO (HK) LTD v. SUPERIOR PRECISION AND OTHERS

HCA 1086/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1086 OF 2008

—————————-

BETWEEN

INABATA SANGYO (HK) LIMITED Plaintiff
and
SUPERIOR PRECISION ENGINEERING CO. LIMITED 1st Defendant
TAY SIEW LENG 2nd Defendant
LAM TAK SHING 3rd Defendant
HUI YAN SUI WILLIAM 4th Defendant
LAU YEAN LIANG RAYMOND 5th Defendant

———————-

Before: Hon Yam J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 4 July 2008

Date of Decision: 4 July 2008

————————

D E C I S I O N

———————-

1. The application by the 4th defendant for the adjournment is refused.

2. For the same reason, I dismiss the 4th defendant’s application to vary or otherwise discharge the injunction against him, because I am convinced by Mr Bowers’ second,which should be the third, affidavit filed yesterday, and his submissions, that the two proposed undertakings of the 4th defendant are not good enough to discharge the Mareva injunction against the 4th defendant.

3. Basically in respect of the first lot of shares, the 4th defendant only holds about 8.23 million shares in Swing Media with doubtful value. The other lot of 23 million shares (which werelisted outside the jurisdiction of the USA) in Inacom were only trading in very small amounts; and according to the latest Bloombergsearch, at 10-odd US cents. They could not even be sold in bulk in one go at this value, and therefore they may be virtually valueless.

[Submissions on costs]

4. On summary assessment of the costs involved, I have nothing here to doubt Mr Bowers’ hours of work and rates, and in fact theother side only said the summons and affidavit were only served two days ago, but the amount of work for Mr Bowers and Mr Mo(?) evenafter that has reasonably been set out in the proposed statement of costs of gross sum assessment.

5. There are also works done in anticipation of such and application by having the Bloomberg search since 19 June in respect of thoseshares I mentioned. But then the only thing I think Mr Bowers also agreed was the hearing was only 1½ hours.

6. So to that amount of $115,000 should be deducted $10,500, and the total amount is $104,500.

7. At the outset, I must say that I agree with Mr Bowers that costs should be taxed and paid forthwith.

8. So costs to the plaintiff to be paid within 14 days by the 4th defendant, which amounts of costs are summarily assessed at $104,500.

(D. Yam)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Courts

Mr Kevin Bowers, Solicitor of Messrs Richards Butler, for the Plaintiff

Mr George Chu, instructed by Messrs Huen & Partners, for the 4thDefendant