IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO.7402 OF 1999
and IN THE MATTER OF All That Ground Floor, 10H, Hing Keng Shek, Lot No.254 in D.D. No.219, Sai Kung, New Territories, Hong Kong —————- ————–
IN THE MATTER OF All That Ground Floor, 10H, Hing Keng Shek, Lot No.254 in D.D. No.219, Sai Kung, New Territories, Hong Kong
Coram: Hon Cheung J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 1 February 2000
Date of Judgment: 1 February 2000
J U D G M E N T
1. There are three matters before me. First of all, an application by the defendant to appeal against the decision of the master refusingto stay the execution of a judgment granted against the defendant pending the appeal by the defendant; secondly, an application bythe defendant to require the plaintiff to disclose documents (yesterday a further application by the defendant was lodged requiringthe plaintiff to be cross-examined on the hearing of the appeal); thirdly, an application by the plaintiff for security for costsagainst the defendant in respect of the appeal.
Security for costs
2. As far as the application for security is concerned, the matter can be disposed of very quickly. The plaintiff relied on Order 55,rule 7(6) of the High Court Rules. Clearly the reference to this order is wrong. The order governing appeal from masters is Order58. There is no provision under Order 58 for security for costs. Under Order 55, rule 1, it is provided that “subject to paragraphs(2), (3) and (4), this Order shall apply to every appeal which by or under any enactment lies to the Court of First Instance fromany court, tribunal or person”. The definition of “Court” in Order 1, rule 4(2) is not applicable because the reference to “Court”in that particular sub-rule is the Court of First Instance. The “Court” there appears with a capital letter “C” whereas the “court”in Order 55 is in small letters. I think they are referring to different courts and hence Order 55 is not applicable.
Stay of execution
3. As far as the defendant’s appeal against the masters’ decision on the stay of execution is concerned, the appeal will be heard on1 March 2000. There clearly is an argument on whether the defendant, who is relying on the rights of a purchaser’s lien, has thesame rights as the vendor exercising his lien for unpaid purchase money. It is stated in Williams on Vendor and Purchaser, 4th Edn., p.988 that in certain circumstances, the vendor in exercising the lien may be led into possession again. While the defendantin this case may not have the right to possess the property after the provisional agreement for sale and purchase had been terminated,her right in exercising the purchaser’s lien may not be that straightforward. The matters can only be fully argued on the appealand at the meantime, the status must be preserved, otherwise the appeal would be rendered nugatory. For this reason, the defendantshould be entitled to have a stay of execution of the judgment pending the determination of the appeal.
4. In respect of the defendant’s application for discovery, I would adjourn the summons for discovery to the appeal itself. Likewise,in respect of the defendant’s summons for the cross-examination of the plaintiff, which was only issued yesterday, I would adjournit to the hearing of the appeal as well.
Mr M.K. Chan, of Messrs Yuen & Partners, for the Plaintiff
Mr Jeremy Cheung, instructed by Messrs Yolanda Fan & Co., for the Defendant