NEWTECH RICH LTD. v. CHAN SHUK YIN ADA AND ANOTHER

HCA008726A/1997

HCA8726/97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO.8726 OF 1997

———————-

BETWEEN
NEWTECH RICH LIMITED Plaintiff
AND
CHAN SHUK YIN ADA and CHOW CHEE WAI CHRISTOPHER Defendants

———————–

Coram : Suffiad J. in Court

Date of Hearing : 28 September 1999

Date of handing down Ruling : 4 October 1999

—————-

R U L I N G

—————-

1. I gave judgment in this matter on 2nd July 1999 in which I found for the Plaintiff and ordered the Defendants to return the initialdeposit of $500,000.00 to the Plaintiff, at the same time dismissing the Defendants’ counterclaim.

2. It has since come to my attention that in making that order, I had omitted to award interests on the sum of $500,000.00.

3. Interests had been claimed by the Plaintiff in its Statement of Claim. However, when judgment was handed down in this matter on 2ndJuly 1999, I had overlooked the fact that interests had been claimed by the Plaintiff and therefore failed to deal with interestsin my judgment.

4. Had I so applied my mind when giving judgment, quite obviously the Plaintiff would justly have been entitled to interests on thejudgment sum, having been kept out of its money by the Defendants.

5. I now redress that omission under the slip rule – Order 20, rule 11 – of the Rules of the High Court.

6. I shall make a further order that there be interests upon the sum of $500,000.00, at judgment rate from 21st August 1997 (the dateof Writ) until date of payment, to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.

7. This application by the Plaintiff under the “slip rule” was opposed by the Defendants. I see no reason why costs should not followthe event. Accordingly I order that costs of this application be to the Plaintiff to be borne by the Defendants.

(A.R. Suffiad)
Judge of the Court of First Instance,
High Court

Representation:

Mr Anderson Chow, inst’d by M/s Tang, Lai & Leung, for the Plaintiff

Mr Samuel Chan, inst’d by M/s Baker & McKenzie, for the Defendants