YIP ALICE AND OTHERS v. WONG SHUN

YIP ALICE AND OTHERS v. WONG SHUN

The Master was justified in imposing payment into court of HK$450,000 as condition to defend the liquidated damages claim because the defendant's fraud-based defence lacked required particulars and appeared shadowy, but the defendant demonstrated a triable issue on the trespass/possession cause so no security should be imposed for that cause; accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the required security reduced to HK$450,000 with a shortened payment period.

Citation
YIP ALICE AND OTHERS v. WONG SHUN
Parties
1st Plaintiff: YIP ALICE; 2nd Plaintiff: YIP CHEE KEUNG; 3rd Plaintiff: YIP CHEE MING; Defendant/appellant: WONG SHUN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 August 2000
Case Number
HCA12614/1999
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Master's Interlocutory Order Under Order 14 / Interlocutory Appeal in Chambers Against Conditional Leave to Defend Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; security reduced to HK$450,000; time for payment fixed at 14 days; order nisi that costs of appeal be costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Conditional Leave to Defend, Summary Disposal Under Order 14, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Tenancy/managerial Agreements, Security for Conditional Leave
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Tort (trespass) Property Law Civil Procedure Conditional Leave to Defend Summary Disposal Under Order 14 Fraudulent Misrepresentation Tenancy/managerial Agreements +1 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YIP ALICE

1st Plaintiff

YIP CHEE KEUNG

2nd Plaintiff

YIP CHEE MING

3rd Plaintiff

WONG SHUN

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Master's Interlocutory Order Under Order 14 / Interlocutory Appeal in Chambers Against Conditional Leave to Defend Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant demonstrated a bona fide defence to the liquidated damages claim
  2. 2 Whether the defence alleging fraudulent misrepresentation was particularised sufficiently to defeat conditional leave
  3. 3 Whether there is a triable issue as to the plaintiffs' right to possession (trespass) and whether security should be required for that cause

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was justified in imposing payment into court of HK$450,000 as condition to defend the liquidated damages claim because the defendant's fraud-based defence lacked required particulars and appeared shadowy, but the defendant demonstrated a triable issue on the trespass/possession cause so no security should be imposed for that cause; accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and the required security reduced to HK$450,000 with a shortened payment period.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; security reduced to HK$450,000; time for payment fixed at 14 days; order nisi that costs of appeal be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • Leave to defend liquidated damages claim granted conditional upon payment into court of HK$450,000
  • Time for payment into court fixed at 14 days from date of judgment