LI LI HONG v. KILMOREY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

LI LI HONG v. KILMOREY INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

The court rejected defendants' defences of misrepresentation, SFO contravention, duress and superseding agreement as unsupported and not believable; found clear non-compliance with the Disclosure Order; concluded it would be unjust to assess damages at the breach date given market liquidity and mitigation realities and fixed assessment date at 27 September 2019; entered summary judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants for HK$162,057,480 and granted ancillary orders including disclosure and continuation of the Mareva injunction.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 372
Parties
Plaintiff: Li Li Hong; 1st Defendant: Kilmorey International Holdings Limited; 2nd Defendant: Cai Weiheng
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Case Number
HCA1166/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Summary Judgment and Injunction Hearing
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for plaintiff against 1st and 2nd defendants
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Damages, Mareva Injunction, Disclosure Order, Misrepresentation, Duress, Guarantee, Assessment of Damages, Mitigation
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Securities Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Damages Mareva Injunction Disclosure Order +5 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Li Li Hong

Plaintiff

Kilmorey International Holdings Limited

1st Defendant

Cai Weiheng

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Summary Judgment and Injunction Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Kilmorey breached the Deed of Settlement and related agreements
  2. 2 Whether Cai is liable under the Deed of Guarantee
  3. 3 Whether defences of misrepresentation, duress, SFO contravention and superseding agreement raise triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

The court rejected defendants' defences of misrepresentation, SFO contravention, duress and superseding agreement as unsupported and not believable; found clear non-compliance with the Disclosure Order; concluded it would be unjust to assess damages at the breach date given market liquidity and mitigation realities and fixed assessment date at 27 September 2019; entered summary judgment for the plaintiff against both defendants for HK$162,057,480 and granted ancillary orders including disclosure and continuation of the Mareva injunction.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for plaintiff against 1st and 2nd defendants

Orders

  • Judgment against the 1st and 2nd defendants severally for HK$162,057,480 together with interest at 30% per annum on HK$163,000,000 (or any outstanding part) from 13 June 2019 until full payment
  • Costs of the action, including costs of the summary judgment application and any reserved costs, to be paid by the 1st and 2nd defendants to the plaintiff