CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SILVERING COPE LTD. AND ANOTHER

CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SILVERING COPE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Given the plaintiffs' concession that warranties were made and the 2nd defendant's limited admissions, there remained a real issue to be tried on whether the 2nd defendant breached the warranties; the claim was not a plain and obvious failure and therefore the strike out application should be dismissed.

Citation
CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SILVERING COPE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: China Everbright Finance Limited; 2nd Plaintiff: Poseidon Treasure Limited; 1st Defendant: Silvering Cope Limited; 1st Defendant: Forever Limited; 2nd Defendant: So Chi Yuk
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2000
Case Number
HCA18676/1999
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Action (breach of Warranty of Authority) / Appeal From Master Poon's Dismissal of Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19; Heard by Yam J in Chambers
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Warranty of Authority, Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19, Real Issue to Be Tried
Source Language
EN
Agency Contract Civil Procedure Commercial Law Warranty of Authority Strike Out Under Order 18 Rule 19 Real Issue to Be Tried

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Everbright Finance Limited

1st Plaintiff

Poseidon Treasure Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Silvering Cope Limited

1st Defendant

Forever Limited

1st Defendant

So Chi Yuk

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Civil Action (breach of Warranty of Authority) / Appeal From Master Poon's Dismissal of Strike Out Application Under Order 18 Rule 19; Heard by Yam J in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a breach of warranty of authority by the 2nd defendant
  2. 2 Whether the statement of claim should be struck out under Order 18 rule 19 as plain and obvious
  3. 3 Whether there is a real issue to be tried given the pleadings and concessions

Ratio Decidendi

Given the plaintiffs' concession that warranties were made and the 2nd defendant's limited admissions, there remained a real issue to be tried on whether the 2nd defendant breached the warranties; the claim was not a plain and obvious failure and therefore the strike out application should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiffs