STPEHEN LIU YIU KEUNG AND AKAN GROUP LTD

STPEHEN LIU YIU KEUNG AND AKAN GROUP LTD

The court refused the adjournment because the defendants failed to show their proposed defence was reasonably arguable or that an adjournment would be fruitful, and because the adjournment would cause grave prejudice to the plaintiff by prolonging loss of possession and income; accordingly the applications for adjournment were dismissed and costs ordered against the defendants.

Citation
STPEHEN LIU YIU KEUNG AND AKAN GROUP LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (receiver): Stephen Liu Yiu Keung; Defendant (tenant): Akan Group Limited; Defendant (tenant): Open Share Investments Limited; Defendant (tenant): Winko Motor Industries Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 August 2004
Case Number
HCA926/2004
Procedural Posture
Possession/declaration and Injunction Arising From Challenged Tenancy Agreements Over Charged Property; Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Injunction Applications / Interlocutory (application to Adjourn Order 14 Hearing for Summary Judgment/interlocutory Injunction)
Outcome
Defendants' applications for adjournment dismissed; summonses for adjournment dismissed
Legal Topics
Legal Charge, Tenancy Dispute, Summary Judgment, Interlocutory Injunction, Adjournment, Receivership, Failure of Consideration, Costs
Source Language
EN
Property Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Equity Legal Charge Tenancy Dispute Summary Judgment Interlocutory Injunction +4 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Liu Yiu Keung

Plaintiff (receiver)

Akan Group Limited

Defendant (tenant)

Open Share Investments Limited

Defendant (tenant)

Winko Motor Industries Limited

Defendant (tenant)

Procedural Posture

Possession/declaration and Injunction Arising From Challenged Tenancy Agreements Over Charged Property; Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Injunction Applications / Interlocutory (application to Adjourn Order 14 Hearing for Summary Judgment/interlocutory Injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted an adjournment to file evidence in opposition to summary judgment/interlocutory injunction applications
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' proposed defence that the legal charges are void for failure of consideration is reasonably arguable
  3. 3 Whether the tenancy agreements bind the plaintiff/Receiver given the registered legal charges and lack of bank consent

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the adjournment because the defendants failed to show their proposed defence was reasonably arguable or that an adjournment would be fruitful, and because the adjournment would cause grave prejudice to the plaintiff by prolonging loss of possession and income; accordingly the applications for adjournment were dismissed and costs ordered against the defendants.

Court Disposition

Defendants' applications for adjournment dismissed; summonses for adjournment dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants' applications for adjournment are dismissed
  • Costs of the summonses to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff in any event, to be taxed if not agreed