LIN LU LIN v. GREEN LIVING LTD AND ANOTHER

LIN LU LIN v. GREEN LIVING LTD AND ANOTHER

The appeal was dismissed because the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any meritorious defence with a real prospect of success: there was consideration for the Letter of Indemnity, no proved enforceable variation of the extended completion date, the estoppel assertion was unpleaded and implausible, and it is permissible to sue a guarantor alone; therefore the Master correctly refused to set aside the interlocutory judgment.

Citation
LIN LU LIN v. GREEN LIVING LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Lin Lu Lin; 1st Defendant: Green Living Limited; 2nd Defendant: Chu Kwok Hung Thomas
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 February 2005
Case Number
HCA1845/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Interlocutory Appeal to Court of First Instance Against Master Levy's Dismissal of Summons to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs to the plaintiff; interlocutory judgment against 2nd defendant stands
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Consideration, Variation of Contract, Estoppel, Guarantor Liability, Damages Assessment, Interlocutory Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Guarantee Estoppel Default Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Consideration Variation of Contract +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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lin Lu Lin

Plaintiff

Green Living Limited

1st Defendant

Chu Kwok Hung Thomas

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Interlocutory Appeal to Court of First Instance Against Master Levy's Dismissal of Summons to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was consideration for the Letter of Indemnity
  2. 2 Whether the Letter of Indemnity was vitiated by an agreed variation or condition
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was estopped from suing the 2nd defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the 2nd defendant failed to demonstrate any meritorious defence with a real prospect of success: there was consideration for the Letter of Indemnity, no proved enforceable variation of the extended completion date, the estoppel assertion was unpleaded and implausible, and it is permissible to sue a guarantor alone; therefore the Master correctly refused to set aside the interlocutory judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs to the plaintiff; interlocutory judgment against 2nd defendant stands

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff