DAVID OWEN v. MAIN CROWN ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

DAVID OWEN v. MAIN CROWN ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for judgment on admission because the alleged admissions were not clear and unambiguous as to the existence of the underlying Smith & Olsson fraud or the defendants' liabilities; dismissed the Plaintiff's summary judgment application because Order 14 r.1(2)(b) excludes summary disposal of claims founded on allegations of fraud; and refused the 1st Defendant's application for security for costs because, on the balance of relevant circumstances (including an unrefuted foreign conviction allegation, a subsisting High Court default judgment on similar facts and apparent inconsistencies in defendants' evidence), it would be unjust to order security.

Citation
DAVID OWEN v. MAIN CROWN ENTERPRISES LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: David Owen; 1st Defendant: Main Crown Enterprises Limited; 2nd Defendant: Jacob Dov Senderowicz; 3rd Defendant: Michael Shaked; 4th Defendant: Crown Group Services Pte. Ltd
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 January 2014
Case Number
DCCJ1981/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (fraud/claims in Equity and Restitution) / Interlocutory Applications (judgment on Admission; Summary Judgment; Security for Costs)
Outcome
All three summonses dismissed; order nisi that there be no order as to the costs of all the summonses
Legal Topics
Dishonest Assistance, Knowing Receipt, Money Had and Received (unjust Enrichment), Security for Costs, Summary Judgment, Admissions
Source Language
EN
Equity Restitution Trusts Fraud Civil Procedure Dishonest Assistance Knowing Receipt Money Had and Received (unjust Enrichment) +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Owen

Plaintiff

Main Crown Enterprises Limited

1st Defendant

Jacob Dov Senderowicz

2nd Defendant

Michael Shaked

3rd Defendant

Crown Group Services Pte. Ltd

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (fraud/claims in Equity and Restitution) / Interlocutory Applications (judgment on Admission; Summary Judgment; Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment on admissions based on pleaded admissions and affidavit material
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment is available where the action includes claims based on allegations of fraud (Order 14 r.1(2)(b))
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant should be granted security for costs given Plaintiff's residence abroad and defendants' circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for judgment on admission because the alleged admissions were not clear and unambiguous as to the existence of the underlying Smith & Olsson fraud or the defendants' liabilities; dismissed the Plaintiff's summary judgment application because Order 14 r.1(2)(b) excludes summary disposal of claims founded on allegations of fraud; and refused the 1st Defendant's application for security for costs because, on the balance of relevant circumstances (including an unrefuted foreign conviction allegation, a subsisting High Court default judgment on similar facts and apparent inconsistencies in defendants' evidence), it would be unjust to order security.

Court Disposition

All three summonses dismissed; order nisi that there be no order as to the costs of all the summonses

Orders

  • Dismissed: Plaintiff's application for judgment on admission
  • Dismissed: Plaintiff's application for summary judgment under Order 14