CHEN LIP KEONG v. EVOLUTION MASTER FUND LTD SPC, SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO M

CHEN LIP KEONG v. EVOLUTION MASTER FUND LTD SPC, SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO M

The April 23, 2010 solicitor's letter did not sufficiently disclose the defence at the material time before the summons was issued; the defence relied on at hearing was more developed and materially different; therefore the case did not fall within Order 14 r.7 and the appropriate order is costs in the cause with certificate for two counsel.

Citation
CHEN LIP KEONG v. EVOLUTION MASTER FUND LTD SPC, SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO M
Parties
Plaintiff: CHEN LIP KEONG; Defendant: EVOLUTION MASTER FUND LIMITED SPC, SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO M
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 January 2011
Case Number
HCA575/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Action: Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Costs After Dismissal of Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed (earlier decision); costs order on ruling on costs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Costs Order, Leave to Defend, Put Option, Default Interest
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Civil Litigation Summary Judgment Costs Order Leave to Defend Put Option Default Interest

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHEN LIP KEONG

Plaintiff

EVOLUTION MASTER FUND LIMITED SPC, SEGREGATED PORTFOLIO M

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action: Summary Judgment Application / Ruling on Costs After Dismissal of Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the case falls within Order 14 rule 7 RHC such that costs should be awarded against the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff knew before issuing the summons that the defendant relied on a defence entitling unconditional leave to defend

Ratio Decidendi

The April 23, 2010 solicitor's letter did not sufficiently disclose the defence at the material time before the summons was issued; the defence relied on at hearing was more developed and materially different; therefore the case did not fall within Order 14 r.7 and the appropriate order is costs in the cause with certificate for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed (earlier decision); costs order on ruling on costs

Orders

  • Costs of and occasioned by the application for summary judgment dated 1 June 2010 to be costs in the cause with certificate for two counsel.