ASIA DEVELOP LTD v. GLORY MARK INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

ASIA DEVELOP LTD v. GLORY MARK INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Extrinsic evidence to prove collateral oral contracts is admissible in principle but the defendants' allegations were inherently incredible and not strictly proved; the written loan agreement on its face showed D1 contracted as principal so D1 remained personally liable and D2 was liable as guarantor; no real and bona fide defence was established and there was no reason for trial; appeal dismissed and summary judgment upheld.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1572
Parties
Plaintiff: Asia Develop Limited; 1st Defendant: Glory Mark Investment (Group) Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cai Shao Wei; Third Party: Zhang Zhi Meng
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 June 2021
Case Number
HCA2532/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt (money Lending) / Appeal Against Master's Grant of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master's decision allowing summary judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Agency Defence, Collateral Contract, Guarantee, Parol Evidence Rule, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Agency Law Civil Procedure Moneylenders Ordinance Summary Judgment Agency Defence Collateral Contract Guarantee +3 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 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asia Develop Limited

Plaintiff

Glory Mark Investment (Group) Limited

1st Defendant

Cai Shao Wei

2nd Defendant

Zhang Zhi Meng

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt (money Lending) / Appeal Against Master's Grant of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged collateral oral contracts are admissible and proven
  2. 2 Whether D1 was agent for Zhang and thereby not personally liable
  3. 3 Whether D2 is liable as guarantor if D1 had no principal obligation

Ratio Decidendi

Extrinsic evidence to prove collateral oral contracts is admissible in principle but the defendants' allegations were inherently incredible and not strictly proved; the written loan agreement on its face showed D1 contracted as principal so D1 remained personally liable and D2 was liable as guarantor; no real and bona fide defence was established and there was no reason for trial; appeal dismissed and summary judgment upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master's decision allowing summary judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff affirmed