HUTCHVISION ASIA LTD v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD

HUTCHVISION ASIA LTD v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD

The court refused to strike out ATV's defence or grant summary judgment because ATV's defences were not shown to be sham or entirely without substance and the court will not decide disputed factual issues at interlocutory stage; however the court ordered security for costs and that HAL must fortify its undertaking or ATV will be released from its undertaking, leaving disputed issues of authority and misrepresentation to trial.

Citation
HUTCHVISION ASIA LTD v. ASIA TELEVISION LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (counterclaim): HUTCHVISION ASIA LIMITED; Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim): ASIA TELEVISION LIMITED; Defendant (counterclaim): LI KA SHING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 September 1993
Case Number
HCA6757/1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Misrepresentation / Interlocutory Applications Following Close of Pleadings; Discovery and Inspection Completed; Applications for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs and Fortification of Undertaking
Outcome
Application by HAL to strike out ATV's defence refused; summary judgment not granted; order for security for costs granted; HAL ordered to fortify its undertaking or ATV released from its undertaking; ATV awarded costs of the interlocutory summonses (subject to further argument)
Legal Topics
Authority of Agent, Sham Defence/striking Out, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Rescission for Misrepresentation, Undertakings and Fortification
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Company Law Tort Misrepresentation Authority of Agent Sham Defence/striking Out Summary Judgment Security for Costs +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HUTCHVISION ASIA LIMITED

Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (counterclaim)

ASIA TELEVISION LIMITED

Defendant (original Action); Plaintiff (counterclaim)

LI KA SHING

Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract and Misrepresentation / Interlocutory Applications Following Close of Pleadings; Discovery and Inspection Completed; Applications for Strike Out, Summary Judgment, Security for Costs and Fortification of Undertaking

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Tsao had authority to bind ATV by signing the agreement
  2. 2 Whether ATV's defence is a sham or abuse of process warranting striking out or summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether alleged pre-contractual statements amounted to actionable misrepresentations relied upon by ATV

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to strike out ATV's defence or grant summary judgment because ATV's defences were not shown to be sham or entirely without substance and the court will not decide disputed factual issues at interlocutory stage; however the court ordered security for costs and that HAL must fortify its undertaking or ATV will be released from its undertaking, leaving disputed issues of authority and misrepresentation to trial.

Court Disposition

Application by HAL to strike out ATV's defence refused; summary judgment not granted; order for security for costs granted; HAL ordered to fortify its undertaking or ATV released from its undertaking; ATV awarded costs of the interlocutory summonses (subject to further argument)

Orders

  • Refuse HAL's application to strike out ATV's defence
  • Refuse HAL's application for summary judgment