BRILLIANT (MAN SAU) ENGINEERING LTD v. BRILLIANT STEEL ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

BRILLIANT (MAN SAU) ENGINEERING LTD v. BRILLIANT STEEL ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

The judge accepted the documentary evidence (loan agreements, bank advices, receipts) and concluded Hok Wa failed to demonstrate a credible defence with a real prospect of success, including failing to rebut apparent or actual authority of Mr Wong; payments to workers under the Employment Ordinance are recoverable as a debt under s43F; accordingly the master’s order setting aside the default judgment was wrong and the default judgment was restored with the specified variation as to the EO sum and interest; costs ordered to follow the event.

Citation
[2021] HKDC 252
Parties
Plaintiff: Brilliant (Man Sau) Engineering Limited; 1st Defendant: Brilliant Steel Engineering Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hok Wa Construction Engineering Company Limited
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Case Number
DCCJ5938/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (debt/contract) / Appeal From Master's Order; De Novo Hearing of Summons
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order of master setting aside default judgment set aside; default judgment restored with variation to specify EO sum and interest
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Variation of Judgment, Employment Ordinance S43 C/s43 F, Loan Agreements, Apparent Authority, Payment to Workers Under Labour Claims
Source Language
EN
Employment Law Contract Law Debt Recovery Civil Procedure Agency Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Variation of Judgment Employment Ordinance S43 C/s43 F +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brilliant (Man Sau) Engineering Limited

Plaintiff

Brilliant Steel Engineering Limited

1st Defendant

Hok Wa Construction Engineering Company Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (debt/contract) / Appeal From Master's Order; De Novo Hearing of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant has a reasonable defence with a real prospect of success to the loan and EO claims
  3. 3 Whether payments made under Employment Ordinance s43C are recoverable as a debt under s43F

Ratio Decidendi

The judge accepted the documentary evidence (loan agreements, bank advices, receipts) and concluded Hok Wa failed to demonstrate a credible defence with a real prospect of success, including failing to rebut apparent or actual authority of Mr Wong; payments to workers under the Employment Ordinance are recoverable as a debt under s43F; accordingly the master’s order setting aside the default judgment was wrong and the default judgment was restored with the specified variation as to the EO sum and interest; costs ordered to follow the event.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order of master setting aside default judgment set aside; default judgment restored with variation to specify EO sum and interest

Orders

  • Default judgment dated 16 March 2020 restored with variation: paragraph 2 changed to award the sum of HK$912,450.00 together with interest at 8.125% per annum from 31 October 2019 to 31 December 2019 and 8.084% per annum from 1 January 2022 to date and thereafter at judgment rate until payment, and leave assessing...
  • Order nisi that Hok Wa pay the Company its costs of and occasioned by the appeal and the summons with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed