HING HAM HONG PETROLEUM CO LTD v. CHEUNG KAM PUI AND WONG MAN ON t/a YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENG CO

HING HAM HONG PETROLEUM CO LTD v. CHEUNG KAM PUI AND WONG MAN ON t/a YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENG CO

The learned Master was entitled to require payment into court because the 1st-named defendant's defence, even on its own allegations, did not satisfactorily exclude personal liability and the verification defect was cured, making the defence appear insubstantial or suspicious.

Citation
HING HAM HONG PETROLEUM CO LTD v. CHEUNG KAM PUI AND WONG MAN ON t/a YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENG CO
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: HING NAM HONG PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED; Defendant/appellant: CHENG KAM PUI; Defendant/appellant: WONG MAN ON trading as YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 December 1982
Case Number
HCA6522/1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/debt Claim (conditional Leave to Defend) / Appeal From Master's Order Granting Conditional Leave to Defend and Payment Into Court Requirement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Leave to Defend, Payment Into Court, Verification of Claim, Agency Versus Personal Liability, Partner Retirement
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Partnership Law Agency Law Conditional Leave to Defend Payment Into Court Verification of Claim Agency Versus Personal Liability +1 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HING NAM HONG PETROLEUM COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff/respondent

CHENG KAM PUI

Defendant/appellant

WONG MAN ON trading as YEE HOP CONSTRUCTION ENG. CO.

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/debt Claim (conditional Leave to Defend) / Appeal From Master's Order Granting Conditional Leave to Defend and Payment Into Court Requirement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim was properly verified
  2. 2 Whether the 1st-named defendant presented a bona fide defence that excluded personal liability
  3. 3 Whether the learned Master was entitled to order payment into court before allowing the defence

Ratio Decidendi

The learned Master was entitled to require payment into court because the 1st-named defendant's defence, even on its own allegations, did not satisfactorily exclude personal liability and the verification defect was cured, making the defence appear insubstantial or suspicious.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
  • Order affirmed that the 1st-named defendant must pay the plaintiff's whole claim into court before being permitted to defend