Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd v China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2343

Edward K H Ng acted for the successful plaintiff in resisting an application for a stay of execution of a cost allocatur under O45 r11 and O47 r1 of the RHC, as well as the inherent jurisdiction of the court in Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd v China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2343.

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 O45 r11, 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 simply no special circumstances for the court to exercise its discretion to stay the execution of the allocatur.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the defendant’s stay application and awarded costs to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.