H & E TSURUMI PUMP CO. LTD. v. WING SHING METAL CO. AND OTHERS

H & E TSURUMI PUMP CO. LTD. v. WING SHING METAL CO. AND OTHERS

The appeal was allowed and unconditional leave to defend was granted because contemporaneous documents raised triable issues whether the companies, not the individual, contracted or whether the individual acted as agent, making summary determination of personal liability inappropriate; the O15 r6 application to remove the 1st Defendant was dismissed and must go to trial.

Citation
H & E TSURUMI PUMP CO. LTD. v. WING SHING METAL CO. AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: H & E TSURUMI PUMP CO. LTD.; 1st Defendant: WING SHING METAL COMPANY; 2nd Defendant: SOURCEHILL INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: HONWALL INVESTMENT LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 December 1999
Case Number
HCA5536/1999
Procedural Posture
Debt/contract Claim for Price of Goods and Dishonoured Cheques / Appeal From Master's Conditional Leave to Defend; Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part: 1st Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; appeal against refusal to order removal under O15 r6 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Defend, Piercing the Corporate Veil, Agency and Personal Liability, Dishonoured Cheques
Source Language
EN
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Agency Summary Judgment Leave to Defend Piercing the Corporate Veil Agency and 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H & E TSURUMI PUMP CO. LTD.

Plaintiff

WING SHING METAL COMPANY

1st Defendant

SOURCEHILL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

2nd Defendant

HONWALL INVESTMENT LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Debt/contract Claim for Price of Goods and Dishonoured Cheques / Appeal From Master's Conditional Leave to Defend; Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Defendant incurred personal liability for the price of goods sold and delivered
  2. 2 Whether unconditional leave to defend should be granted or conditional leave requiring payment into court
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant was improperly or unnecessarily joined and should be removed under Order 15 r 6

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed and unconditional leave to defend was granted because contemporaneous documents raised triable issues whether the companies, not the individual, contracted or whether the individual acted as agent, making summary determination of personal liability inappropriate; the O15 r6 application to remove the 1st Defendant was dismissed and must go to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part: 1st Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; appeal against refusal to order removal under O15 r6 dismissed.

Orders

  • Substitute order granting the 1st Defendant unconditional leave to defend
  • Directions given by Master Cheung in his Order dated 13 October 1999 in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 shall stand