LOONGFUNG HING YIP (HOLDINGS) LTD. v. KAN MING CONSTRUCTION INVESTMENTS LTD.

LOONGFUNG HING YIP (HOLDINGS) LTD. v. KAN MING CONSTRUCTION INVESTMENTS LTD.

Because the defendant raised an arguable defence of overpayment and the accounting documents were incomplete creating a 'shadowy aspect' to both parties' cases, summary judgment under Order 14 was inappropriate; leave to defend/unconditional leave should stand and the appeal is dismissed; costs are to be awarded against the plaintiff and the papers are to be referred to the Director of Lands for consideration of suspected illegality.

Citation
LOONGFUNG HING YIP (HOLDINGS) LTD. v. KAN MING CONSTRUCTION INVESTMENTS LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Loongfung Hing Yip (Holdings) Limited; Defendant/respondent: Kan Ming Construction Investments Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 June 2001
Case Number
CACV443/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Order 14 Application) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; the trial judge's exercise of discretion refusing summary judgment/allowing leave to defend is upheld; costs awarded against the plaintiff; papers referred to the Director of Lands.
Legal Topics
Order 14/summary Judgment, Running Account, Cheque Enforcement, Overpayment, Illegality/misrepresentation to Public Office, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Property Law Commercial Law Order 14/summary Judgment Running Account Cheque Enforcement Overpayment +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Loongfung Hing Yip (Holdings) Limited

Plaintiff/appellant

Kan Ming Construction Investments Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Order 14 Application) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has an arguable defence to the cheque claims based on overpayment under a running account
  2. 2 Whether unconditional leave to defend should be granted or the Order 14 summons dismissed
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant raised an arguable defence of overpayment and the accounting documents were incomplete creating a 'shadowy aspect' to both parties' cases, summary judgment under Order 14 was inappropriate; leave to defend/unconditional leave should stand and the appeal is dismissed; costs are to be awarded against the plaintiff and the papers are to be referred to the Director of Lands for consideration of suspected illegality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; the trial judge's exercise of discretion refusing summary judgment/allowing leave to defend is upheld; costs awarded against the plaintiff; papers referred to the Director of Lands.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order 14 summons dismissed / unconditional leave to defend affirmed