DCC 11719/93
Background
A claim was brought against three individuals asking the court to enforce three judgements the claimant had obtained in the Hong Kong high court ordering them to pay the balance outstanding for facilities given to a company owned by the defendants by the claimant. The jurisdiction of Hong Kong had been provided for in the agreement between the parties. The court of first instance dismissed the claim as the judgement had not been ratified by a local court. The claimant appealed and the appeal court upheld the decision. The claimant appealed by cassation arguing that the court had incorrectly interpreted the Civil Procedure Law. It was also stated that the applicable law was Hong Kong law and the defendants were properly summoned. The Civil Procedure Law had not been properly promulgated at the time service was affected.
Decision