IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO. HCA 10480 OF 1996
Coram: The Hon Mr Justice Barnett in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 21 September 1998
Date of Judgment: 21 September 1998
J U D G M E N T
Perhaps describing it as my usual practice is to put it too highly or too strongly, but generally in applications for a stay of execution,unless there is detailed information made available, both as to the applicant’s lack of resources and as to the lack of assets ofthe respondents to the application such that if the appeal is successful the effect is liable to be rendered nugatory because ofthe respondent’s lack of assets, unless I’m given that sort of information then my practice is to refuse the application for stayand suggest that the matter be renewed before a single judge of the Court of Appeal which is seized of the appeal, and in this caseif reliance was placed upon financial matters I would have no hesitation in refusing the application because no supporting evidencehas been placed before me.
1. However, in this case the principal reliance is placed upon the grounds of appeal. It is urged upon me that there is a real prospectof the appeal succeeding.
2. This is an unusual case. The course before me took a slightly unusual turn in that on the appeal I allowed the plaintiff’s claimin full, it only having been achieved in part before the Master. It was not an easy case and it is fair to say that, although I gavethe plaintiff judgment, it was a judgment which I only just gave him.
3. In all the circumstances, I think it right that there should be a stay and I so order. There will be a stay of execution pendingappeal or further order.
Mr S Lu (Vivien Chan & Co) for Plaintiff
Mr Albert R Xavier (instructed by Wong & Chan) for Defendant