TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT

TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT

The Defendant’s account was inherently unbelievable given the clear and contemporaneous wording of the signed agreement and supporting documents; he failed to raise a believable triable defence under Order 86, therefore the Master’s summary judgment for specific performance was correctly affirmed.

Citation
TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT
Parties
1st Plaintiff: TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE; 2nd Plaintiff: FONDUET INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; Defendant: CHENG HUNG KIT
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 October 2004
Case Number
HCA4341/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (specific Performance) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Under Order 86
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for specific performance affirmed.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Summary Judgment (order 86), Intention to Create Legal Relations, Agency/nominee, Agreement Formation, Credibility Assessment at Summary Stage
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Civil Procedure Company Law Shareholder Disputes Specific Performance Summary Judgment (order 86) Intention to Create Legal Relations +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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE

1st Plaintiff

FONDUET INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

CHENG HUNG KIT

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (specific Performance) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Under Order 86

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a binding agreement existed for the sale of shares
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant intended to be personally bound or acted merely as agent/nominee
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant’s account raised a believable triable issue to resist summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant’s account was inherently unbelievable given the clear and contemporaneous wording of the signed agreement and supporting documents; he failed to raise a believable triable defence under Order 86, therefore the Master’s summary judgment for specific performance was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for specific performance affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment for specific performance (Master Levy, 30 March 2004) affirmed