CELANESE ESTATE LTD. v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND OTHERS

CELANESE ESTATE LTD. v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND OTHERS

The court granted judgment for the 1st defendant in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons and ordered costs against the plaintiff because the plaintiff's attempted Order 14 application was not filed, breached mandatory requirements (no supporting affidavit and insufficient service), and would in any event...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CELANESE ESTATE LTD. v. KUNG KWOK WAI DAVID AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Celanese Estate Limited; 1st Defendant: Kung Kwok Wai David (appointed to represent Kung Wong Sau Hin, deceased, sole executrix of Kung Yuek Man aliases); 2nd Defendant: Princewell Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 2000
Case Number
HCA6437/1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Order 14 Summary Judgment Application (mortgage Dispute) / Judgment on Order 14 Application and Costs
Outcome
Judgment entered for 1st defendant in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons; plaintiff's Order 14 application was not filed and would have been dismissed for non‑compliance with rules.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Order 14, Interest Calculation (simple Vs Compound), Service and Filing Requirements, Affidavit Requirements
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Mortgages Costs Summary Judgment Order 14 Interest Calculation (simple Vs Compound) Service and Filing Requirements Affidavit Requirements

Source-derived case record

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

Celanese Estate Limited

Plaintiff

Kung Kwok Wai David (appointed to represent Kung Wong Sau Hin, deceased, sole executrix of Kung Yuek Man aliases)

1st Defendant

Princewell Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Order 14 Summary Judgment Application (mortgage Dispute) / Judgment on Order 14 Application and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant was entitled to judgment in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's application under Order 14 could be entertained given non‑filing and procedural non‑compliance
  3. 3 Whether interest under the mortgage should be calculated as simple or compound interest (issue not pleaded)

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted judgment for the 1st defendant in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons and ordered costs against the plaintiff because the plaintiff's attempted Order 14 application was not filed, breached mandatory requirements (no supporting affidavit and insufficient service), and would in any event have been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for 1st defendant in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons; plaintiff's Order 14 application was not filed and would have been dismissed for non‑compliance with rules.

Orders

  • Judgment for the 1st defendant in terms of paragraphs 1–4 of the Order 14 summons.
  • Costs of the counterclaim, including the costs of the 1st defendant's application for summary judgment, to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant, such costs to be taxed forthwith.