21 FINANCE LTD v. GAN LEI AND ANOTHER

21 FINANCE LTD v. GAN LEI AND ANOTHER

The alleged agreement or promise to withdraw proceedings was not believable on the evidence: no particulars, the contemporary communications did not contain an unequivocal promise, subsequent conduct (filing acknowledgments of service, solicitors' correspondence) was inconsistent with an agreement, and there was no credible reliance or detrimental alteration of position by the Defendants; accordingly there were no triable issues and summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with minor alterations and correction of an interest rate.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1600
Parties
Applicant/plaintiff: 21 Finance Limited; 1st Defendant (hcmp 507/2022): Gan Lei; 2nd Defendant (hcmp 507/2022): Tu Bin; 1st Defendant (hcmp 1231/2022): Golden Horse Asia Pacific Limited; 2nd Defendant (hcmp 1231/2022): Gan Kelu
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 June 2023
Case Number
HCMP507/2022
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (mortgage Enforcement) / Judgment on Originating Summons (summary Disposal)
Outcome
Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in HCMP 507/2022 and HCMP 1231/2022 on originating summons (summary disposal)
Legal Topics
Order 83 a, Order 88, Summary Judgment/summary Disposal, Promissory Estoppel, Conversion to Writ, Mortgage Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Mortgage Law Civil Procedure Equity Contract Law Order 83 a Order 88 Summary Judgment/summary Disposal Promissory Estoppel +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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

21 Finance Limited

Applicant/plaintiff

Gan Lei

1st Defendant (hcmp 507/2022)

Tu Bin

2nd Defendant (hcmp 507/2022)

Golden Horse Asia Pacific Limited

1st Defendant (hcmp 1231/2022)

Gan Kelu

2nd Defendant (hcmp 1231/2022)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (mortgage Enforcement) / Judgment on Originating Summons (summary Disposal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement was made by the Plaintiff to withdraw proceedings to permit private sales of mortgaged properties
  2. 2 Whether promissory estoppel arose from any such alleged promise
  3. 3 Whether there were triable issues requiring conversion to writ proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged agreement or promise to withdraw proceedings was not believable on the evidence: no particulars, the contemporary communications did not contain an unequivocal promise, subsequent conduct (filing acknowledgments of service, solicitors' correspondence) was inconsistent with an agreement, and there was no credible reliance or detrimental alteration of position by the Defendants; accordingly there were no triable issues and summary judgment was entered for the Plaintiff with minor alterations and correction of an interest rate.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in HCMP 507/2022 and HCMP 1231/2022 on originating summons (summary disposal)

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in HCMP 507/2022 in terms of the Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons with wording amended (certain descriptive words deleted) and liberty to apply amended to include words permitting further relief including an order for sale of the property
  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff in HCMP 1231/2022 in terms of the Notice of Appointment to Hear Originating Summons with interest rate corrected from 27% to 15% and liberty to apply amended to include words permitting further relief including an order for sale of the property