1. The fact of the case
Respondent (Schmidt) was a consulting engineer for the appellant company (Kepong Prospecting Ltd). The appellant company was the holders of certain mining leases in respect of deposits of iron ore. They did not work these deposits themselves but allowed them to be worked on tribute by another company named Kepong Mines Ltd. Their business in practice would seem to be confined to collecting the tribute and distributing it to their shareholders after making arrangements in respect of income tax. Schmidt claimed that he was entitled to receive certain payments in respect of all ore won on the Kepong Prospecting land. But Kepong Prospecting utter that various agreements under which Schmidt claims are either invalid or unenforceable. On June 26, 1961 Schmidt took out a summons in chambers issued ex parte against Kepong Prospecting Ltd to seize their credit in the Oversea Union Bank and Bank of Canton. On July 6, 1961 Kepong Prospecting Ltd took out a summons in chambers to have the order of ex parte set aside. It has been dismissed by Hashim J. Kepong Prospecting plead to Court of Appeal.
2. The issues (problems) that arise in the case
There are two problems we can observe in this case.
First, it is Schmidt has the right to claim the payments from Kepong Prospecting Ltd? Second, is it Kepong Prospecting purposely delay or obstruct the judgment made by court?
3. The decision for the case
This case is heard upon Thomson CJ, Hill and Good JJA. Their judgment on this case is appeal allowed with costs and set aside the ex parte Order of 26th June, 1961 as the respondent's application was of necessity made under section 19 of the Debtors Ordinance [*376]. An applicant for an order under that section must satisfy the Court: (a) that he has a "good cause of action" and (b) that the "defendant with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any judgment" has removed or is about to remove or has...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document