ANTHONY CHARLES DESIR v. AJAX PONG MACHINERY LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER

ANTHONY CHARLES DESIR v. AJAX PONG MACHINERY LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER

The court found as fact that Plaintiff and D1 reached a binding agreement on 25/26 October 1999 for payment of HK$300,000 by four instalments, that the Plaintiff (not UGTCL) was the contracting party, and that sufficient consideration existed (including discounted fees and instalment arrangement); accordingly judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$300,000 plus interest and costs.

Citation
ANTHONY CHARLES DESIR v. AJAX PONG MACHINERY LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Charles Desir; 1st Defendant: Ajax Pong Machinery Leasing Limited; 2nd Defendant: Ajax Pong (Holdings) Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2006
Case Number
DCCJ16078/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Contract/fees Dispute / Judgment Handed Down 13 April 2006
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants (jointly and severally) for HK$300,000 with interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Consideration, Quantum Meruit, Identity of Contracting Party/agency, Witness Admissibility and Delay
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Commercial Law Debt Recovery Civil Procedure Formation of Contract Consideration Quantum Meruit Identity of Contracting Party/agency +1 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

Anthony Charles Desir

Plaintiff

Ajax Pong Machinery Leasing Limited

1st Defendant

Ajax Pong (Holdings) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Contract/fees Dispute / Judgment Handed Down 13 April 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding agreement (the October Agreement) between Plaintiff and Defendant for HK$300,000 payable in four instalments
  2. 2 Whether the contracting party was the Plaintiff personally or Universal Gold Trading Co Ltd (UGTCL)
  3. 3 Whether there was consideration rendering any alleged agreement enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found as fact that Plaintiff and D1 reached a binding agreement on 25/26 October 1999 for payment of HK$300,000 by four instalments, that the Plaintiff (not UGTCL) was the contracting party, and that sufficient consideration existed (including discounted fees and instalment arrangement); accordingly judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$300,000 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 1st and 2nd Defendants (jointly and severally) for HK$300,000 with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment entered against the Defendants for HK$300,000.
  • Interest at 8% per annum from date of Writ until Judgment and thereafter at Judgment Rate until payment.