AGFA HONG KONG LTD. v. LAM WAI MING t/a FAR EAST RESOURCES (HK) TRADING CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS

AGFA HONG KONG LTD. v. LAM WAI MING t/a FAR EAST RESOURCES (HK) TRADING CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS

The court held there were triable issues as to (a) whether an implied term existed protecting the 1st defendant's ability to recover from PRC customers given the unusual credit arrangements and (b) whether the 2nd defendant was contractually involved; consequently summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend and to amend the defence and counterclaim were granted.

Citation
AGFA HONG KONG LTD. v. LAM WAI MING t/a FAR EAST RESOURCES (HK) TRADING CO. (a firm) AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: AGFA HONG KONG LIMITED; 1st Defendant: LAM WAI MING trading as FAR EAST RESOURCES (HK) TRADING COMPANY (a firm); 2nd Defendant: FAR EAST RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: HEADCO INVESTMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 January 2000
Case Number
HCA9715/1998
Procedural Posture
Action for Debt (running Account) With Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment and Leave to Amend / Interlocutory Ruling on Summonses (summary Judgment and Application to Amend Pleadings)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; 1st and 2nd defendants granted unconditional leave to defend; defendants granted leave to amend pleadings; costs reserved with orders nisi.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Amend, Implied Term, Running Account, Indemnity, Pleadings
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Company Law Summary Judgment Leave to Amend Implied Term Running Account +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AGFA HONG KONG LIMITED

Plaintiff

LAM WAI MING trading as FAR EAST RESOURCES (HK) TRADING COMPANY (a firm)

1st Defendant

FAR EAST RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

2nd Defendant

HEADCO INVESTMENT LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action for Debt (running Account) With Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment and Leave to Amend / Interlocutory Ruling on Summonses (summary Judgment and Application to Amend Pleadings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be entered against the 1st and 2nd defendants on the running account/letter admission
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant is contractually liable under an alleged marketing agreement or running account
  3. 3 Whether an implied term should be recognized that the plaintiff must not disable the 1st defendant from collecting receivables

Ratio Decidendi

The court held there were triable issues as to (a) whether an implied term existed protecting the 1st defendant's ability to recover from PRC customers given the unusual credit arrangements and (b) whether the 2nd defendant was contractually involved; consequently summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend and to amend the defence and counterclaim were granted.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; 1st and 2nd defendants granted unconditional leave to defend; defendants granted leave to amend pleadings; costs reserved with orders nisi.

Orders

  • 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants granted leave to re-re-amend the Amended Defence and Counterclaim in the manner sought within 7 days
  • Plaintiff granted leave to amend its Reply and Defence to Counterclaim within 14 days thereafter