CORE RESOURCES (FAR EAST) LTD. v. SKY FINDERS LTD

CORE RESOURCES (FAR EAST) LTD. v. SKY FINDERS LTD

The judge exercised his discretion to refuse leave to adduce late affirmations because they raised a wholly different defence that arose after the Master\u2019s hearing, the timing and provenance of the rejection letters were suspicious, the late material amounted to litigation by ambush and it would be unjust to permit such evidence; accordingly the Master\u2019s summary judgment was upheld and appeal dismissed.

Citation
CORE RESOURCES (FAR EAST) LTD. v. SKY FINDERS LTD
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Core Resources (Far East) Ltd.; Defendant (appellant): Sky Finders Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 December 1991
Case Number
HCA6920/1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Cheque Dishonour / Summary Judgment / Appeal to High Court (judge in Chambers) From Master
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master Beeson\u2019s summary judgment for the plaintiff upheld.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Dishonoured Cheque, Jurisdiction Clause, Stay of Proceedings, Rejection of Goods / Total Failure of Consideration, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Banking Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Summary Judgment Fresh Evidence on Appeal Dishonoured Cheque +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Core Resources (Far East) Ltd.

Plaintiff (respondent)

Sky Finders Limited

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Cheque Dishonour / Summary Judgment / Appeal to High Court (judge in Chambers) From Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce fresh evidence filed after the Master\u2019s hearing
  2. 2 Whether the defendants validly rejected the goods such as to amount to total failure of consideration and a defence to the cheque claim
  3. 3 Whether proceedings should be stayed in favour of U.S. jurisdiction clause

Ratio Decidendi

The judge exercised his discretion to refuse leave to adduce late affirmations because they raised a wholly different defence that arose after the Master\u2019s hearing, the timing and provenance of the rejection letters were suspicious, the late material amounted to litigation by ambush and it would be unjust to permit such evidence; accordingly the Master\u2019s summary judgment was upheld and appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master Beeson\u2019s summary judgment for the plaintiff upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Leave to adduce the two post-hearing affirmations refused