HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER

HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER

Appeal dismissed and amendment refused: the fresh evidence failed Ladd v Marshall first and second limbs (obtainable with reasonable diligence and not probably decisive); the 1st defendant's prior admission lacked a credible explanation and prospects of success on the proposed case were weak; clause 2.02 of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HERAEUS LTD v. CHAN YUN MUI AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: HERAEUS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: CHAN YUN MUI; 2nd Defendant: CHU KENG MING
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 April 2017
Case Number
HCA878/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Guarantee/contract / Appeal to Judge in Chambers From Registrar's Decision on Amendment Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summons to adduce new evidence refused; application for leave to amend defence refused.
Legal Topics
Conclusive Evidence Clause, Withdrawal of Admission, Ladd V Marshall Criteria for Fresh Evidence, Manifest Error, Discovery and Secondary Evidence, Money Lenders Ordinance (usury)
Source Language
en
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Insolvency Banking Law Conclusive Evidence Clause Withdrawal of Admission Ladd V Marshall Criteria for Fresh Evidence +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HERAEUS LIMITED

Plaintiff

CHAN YUN MUI

1st Defendant

CHU KENG MING

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Guarantee/contract / Appeal to Judge in Chambers From Registrar's Decision on Amendment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce new evidence on appeal under RHC Order 58(1)(5) and Ladd v Marshall
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant could withdraw or amend an admission in her defence and counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether clause 2.02 of the Guarantee (conclusive evidence clause) binds the guarantor absent manifest error

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal dismissed and amendment refused: the fresh evidence failed Ladd v Marshall first and second limbs (obtainable with reasonable diligence and not probably decisive); the 1st defendant's prior admission lacked a credible explanation and prospects of success on the proposed case were weak; clause 2.02 of the Guarantee operated to render the plaintiff's statement of account conclusive absent manifest error, and no manifest error or vitiating circumstance was shown.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summons to adduce new evidence refused; application for leave to amend defence refused.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summons to adduce new evidence refused