REAL INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. UNISON ENTERPRISE COMPANY (a firm)

REAL INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. UNISON ENTERPRISE COMPANY (a firm)

The defendant's plea that the agreement was illegal on public policy grounds failed because transfers of quotas for profit are not illegal as a matter for the court to declare; consequently the defendant was in clear breach of a valid contract and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the claimed sum with costs.

Citation
REAL INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. UNISON ENTERPRISE COMPANY (a firm)
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Real International Co. Ltd.; Defendant/respondent: Unison Enterprise Company (a firm)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 1985
Case Number
HCA6405/1984
Procedural Posture
Contract/commercial Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Decision of Master Hansen (leave to Defend); Judgment Delivered 13 March 1985
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff
Legal Topics
Illegality, Quota Transfers, Damages, Leave to Defend
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Public Policy Remedies Illegality Quota Transfers Damages Leave to Defend

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Real International Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff/appellant

Unison Enterprise Company (a firm)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Contract/commercial Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Decision of Master Hansen (leave to Defend); Judgment Delivered 13 March 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement to transfer quotas for profit was illegal or void on public policy grounds
  2. 2 Whether the defendant had an arguable defence sufficient to justify unconditional leave to defend
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the claimed sum arising from breach

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's plea that the agreement was illegal on public policy grounds failed because transfers of quotas for profit are not illegal as a matter for the court to declare; consequently the defendant was in clear breach of a valid contract and the plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the claimed sum with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for plaintiff

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted by Master Hansen set aside