INDUSTRIAL BANK CO., LTD. v. RICH CROWN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

INDUSTRIAL BANK CO., LTD. v. RICH CROWN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to explain why evidence existing in 2018–2019 could not have been obtained earlier, the late affirmations added new exhibits, the second limb of Ladd v Marshall was not satisfied, no error of law or clear injustice was shown in the judge's discretionary exclusion of further affirmations, and accordingly leave was not in the interests of justice; costs were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, summarily assessed at $150,000.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 725
Parties
Plaintiff: INDUSTRIAL BANK CO., LTD.; 1st Defendant: RICH CROWN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: KO TIN KWOK; 3rd Defendant: CREATON HOLDINGS LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Case Number
HCA298/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil: Summary Judgment and Fresh Evidence Applications; Contractual Debt Enforcement / Post‑judgment Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Leave Summons and Fresh Evidence Summons
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Fresh Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Ladd V Marshall Test, Pleading Fraud, Costs on Indemnity Basis
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Evidence Appeal Contract Law Fraud Allegations Summary Judgment Fresh Evidence Leave to Appeal +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INDUSTRIAL BANK CO., LTD.

Plaintiff

RICH CROWN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES LIMITED

1st Defendant

KO TIN KWOK

2nd Defendant

CREATON HOLDINGS LIMITED

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Summary Judgment and Fresh Evidence Applications; Contractual Debt Enforcement / Post‑judgment Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Leave Summons and Fresh Evidence Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether Zhang 4th and Zhang 6th affirmations constitute admissible fresh evidence
  3. 3 Whether the second limb of Ladd v Marshall is satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendants failed to explain why evidence existing in 2018–2019 could not have been obtained earlier, the late affirmations added new exhibits, the second limb of Ladd v Marshall was not satisfied, no error of law or clear injustice was shown in the judge's discretionary exclusion of further affirmations, and accordingly leave was not in the interests of justice; costs were awarded to the plaintiff on an indemnity basis, summarily assessed at $150,000.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to appeal refused; costs awarded to Plaintiff on indemnity basis

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Fresh Evidence and Leave Summons refused