HEPTA ARTOUS ICTHUDIA LTD v. CHAN WAI PIU AND OTHERS

HEPTA ARTOUS ICTHUDIA LTD v. CHAN WAI PIU AND OTHERS

The court refused to admit the proffered video evidence as it was not probative of the central disputed matters, found that the plaintiff was arguably a money lender and had not complied with s.20(1) in respect of guarantees thereby precluding enforcement against guarantors, and determined that unexplained features in both claim and defence made summary judgment inappropriate; consequently the master's summary judgment was set aside and unconditional leave to defend was granted.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 3162
Parties
Plaintiff: Hepta Artous Icthudia Limited; 1st Defendant: Chan Wai Piu; 2nd Defendant: Chan Kat Cheung; 3rd Defendant: Chan Lai Fun
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 December 2019
Case Number
HCA3259/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Master's Decisions Arising From Summary Judgment Application / Appeal Hearing and Decision (court of First Instance)
Outcome
New Evidence Appeal dismissed; Summary Judgment Appeal allowed; master's order of 10 July 2019 setting summary judgment aside and unconditional leave to defend granted to defendants
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Admission of New Evidence, Money Lenders Ordinance Compliance, Leave to Defend, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Money Lending Law Guarantees Summary Judgment Admission of New Evidence Money Lenders Ordinance Compliance Leave to Defend +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hepta Artous Icthudia Limited

Plaintiff

Chan Wai Piu

1st Defendant

Chan Kat Cheung

2nd Defendant

Chan Lai Fun

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Master's Decisions Arising From Summary Judgment Application / Appeal Hearing and Decision (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether video clips and associated affirmation should be admitted as new evidence in summary judgment proceedings
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff should be upheld or set aside
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff qualifies as a money lender under the Money Lenders Ordinance and if non-compliance with ss.18,20,23 affects enforceability of guarantees

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to admit the proffered video evidence as it was not probative of the central disputed matters, found that the plaintiff was arguably a money lender and had not complied with s.20(1) in respect of guarantees thereby precluding enforcement against guarantors, and determined that unexplained features in both claim and defence made summary judgment inappropriate; consequently the master's summary judgment was set aside and unconditional leave to defend was granted.

Court Disposition

New Evidence Appeal dismissed; Summary Judgment Appeal allowed; master's order of 10 July 2019 setting summary judgment aside and unconditional leave to defend granted to defendants

Orders

  • Affirmed the master’s decision dated 2 July 2019 (New Evidence Appeal) and dismissed the New Evidence Appeal
  • Set aside the master’s order dated 10 July 2019 entering summary judgment for the plaintiff