Court of First Instance refuses stay of execution on cost allocatur

In Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd v China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2343, Mimmie Chan J dismissed an application for stay of execution of cost allocatur by the Defendant under Ord.45, r.11 and Ord.47, r.1 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A), as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, with costs awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis.

The defendant argued, inter alia, that there have been proceedings on the Mainland, commenced by the defendant’s indirect subsidiary against the plaintiff on 19 March 2018, for damages claimed in the sum of RMB52,300,000.

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments under Ord.45 r.11, as all the grounds were either irrelevant or occurred before the allocatur was made. The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments under O47 r1 on the basis that the rule only applies to judgment or order by writ of fi fa, which is not at all applicable to the present case. There were no special circumstances for the court to exercise its discretion to stay the execution of the allocatur.

Edward K H Ng acted for the Plaintiff.