FORTUNA APPARELS LTD. v. MEGA STYLE LTD. and Another

FORTUNA APPARELS LTD. v. MEGA STYLE LTD. and Another

The defence raised by the 1st defendant, while shadowy and containing inherent improbabilities and material documentary contradictions (notably October 1993 minutes), was not shown to be wholly incredible; therefore unconditional summary judgment would be inappropriate. However, the defence was sufficiently suspect to justify conditional leave to defend provided the 1st defendant pays into court the claimed invoice balance of US$145,413.86 within 30 days; applications under Order 27 and for interim payment under Order 29 were dismissed because judgment on admissions was inappropriate and the high evidential threshold and lack of evidence of plaintiff's ability to repay prevented an...

Citation
FORTUNA APPARELS LTD. v. MEGA STYLE LTD. and Another
Parties
Plaintiff: Fortuna Apparels Limited; 1st Defendant: Mega Style Limited; 2nd Defendant: Welly Tide International Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 September 1996
Case Number
HCCL173/1995
Procedural Posture
Commercial List – Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications / Application for Summary Judgment, Alternative Order 27 Judgment on Admissions, and Order 29 Interim Payment; Interlocutory Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Conditional leave to defend granted on payment into court of US$145,413.86 within 30 days; Order 27 application dismissed; Order 29 interim payment applications dismissed; judgment to be entered for plaintiff in event of default.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Conditional Leave to Defend, Order 27 Judgment on Admissions, Order 29 Interim Payment, Admissions and Pleading, Bona Fide Defence
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Set Off Interim Remedies Summary Judgment (order 14) Conditional Leave to Defend Order 27 Judgment on Admissions +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fortuna Apparels Limited

Plaintiff

Mega Style Limited

1st Defendant

Welly Tide International Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial List – Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications / Application for Summary Judgment, Alternative Order 27 Judgment on Admissions, and Order 29 Interim Payment; Interlocutory Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant has a real or bona fide defence sufficient to defeat summary judgment under Order 14
  2. 2 Whether judgment under Order 27 should be entered on the basis of admissions
  3. 3 Whether an interim payment under Order 29 should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The defence raised by the 1st defendant, while shadowy and containing inherent improbabilities and material documentary contradictions (notably October 1993 minutes), was not shown to be wholly incredible; therefore unconditional summary judgment would be inappropriate. However, the defence was sufficiently suspect to justify conditional leave to defend provided the 1st defendant pays into court the claimed invoice balance of US$145,413.86 within 30 days; applications under Order 27 and for interim payment under Order 29 were dismissed because judgment on admissions was inappropriate and the high evidential threshold and lack of evidence of plaintiff's ability to repay prevented an...

Court Disposition

Conditional leave to defend granted on payment into court of US$145,413.86 within 30 days; Order 27 application dismissed; Order 29 interim payment applications dismissed; judgment to be entered for plaintiff in event of default.

Orders

  • 1st defendant granted leave to defend conditional upon payment into court within 30 days of US$145,413.86
  • If default of payment, judgment for plaintiff for US$145,413.86 with costs