EASY ONE FINANCE LTD v. HO KA MAN AND ANOTHER

EASY ONE FINANCE LTD v. HO KA MAN AND ANOTHER

Unconditional summary judgment against Kwok was refused because her forgery/undue influence allegations were not plainly untenable; leave to defend was granted only on condition of payment into court (HKD 700,000 in DCCJ 3566/2017 and HKD 500,000 in DCCJ 3567/2017). Judgment in default under O 83A r 4 was entered against Ho for the claimed outstanding sums with contractual post-judgment interest and indemnity costs to be taxed if not agreed.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 133
Parties
Plaintiff: Easy One Finance Limited; 1st Defendant (dccj 3566/2017); 2nd Defendant (dccj 3567/2017): Kwok Wai Yee; 2nd Defendant (dccj 3566/2017); 1st Defendant (dccj 3567/2017): Ho Ka Man
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 February 2019
Case Number
DCCJ3567/2017
Procedural Posture
Debt Recovery (money Lender Loans; Guarantees) / Summary Judgment Applications and Default Judgment Applications (o 14 R 1; O 83 a R 4)
Outcome
Conditional leave to defend granted to Kwok on payment into court; default judgment entered against Ho; summary judgment conditional orders as below.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Non Est Factum, Undue Influence, Forgery, Payment Into Court as Condition to Defend, Default Judgment Under O 83 a R 4, Contractual Interest, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Guarantee Law Equity (undue Influence) Civil Procedure Forgery/false Instruments Consumer Credit / Money Lenders Regulation Summary Judgment Non Est Factum +6 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Easy One Finance Limited

Plaintiff

Kwok Wai Yee

1st Defendant (dccj 3566/2017); 2nd Defendant (dccj 3567/2017)

Ho Ka Man

2nd Defendant (dccj 3566/2017); 1st Defendant (dccj 3567/2017)

Procedural Posture

Debt Recovery (money Lender Loans; Guarantees) / Summary Judgment Applications and Default Judgment Applications (o 14 R 1; O 83 a R 4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant Kwok raised an arguable defence of non est factum, undue influence or forgery
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff had actual or constructive notice or was put on inquiry of undue influence or misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether leave to defend should be granted only on condition of payment into court and the appropriate quantum

Ratio Decidendi

Unconditional summary judgment against Kwok was refused because her forgery/undue influence allegations were not plainly untenable; leave to defend was granted only on condition of payment into court (HKD 700,000 in DCCJ 3566/2017 and HKD 500,000 in DCCJ 3567/2017). Judgment in default under O 83A r 4 was entered against Ho for the claimed outstanding sums with contractual post-judgment interest and indemnity costs to be taxed if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Conditional leave to defend granted to Kwok on payment into court; default judgment entered against Ho; summary judgment conditional orders as below.

Orders

  • DCCJ 3566/2017: unless 1st defendant (Kwok Wai Yee) pays HKD 700,000 into court within 28 days from date of judgment, plaintiff may enter judgment against 1st defendant for amount claimed with interest and costs (costs to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed)
  • If HKD 700,000 is paid into court the 1st defendant may defend by serving a defence within 7 days of payment