LIU MAN CHUEN EDDY v. LO MING SAN

LIU MAN CHUEN EDDY v. LO MING SAN

The defendant failed to prove any legitimate defence or that the Settlement Agreement was procured by illegitimate pressure, duress or undue influence; the alleged 'clerical omission' was implausible and unsupported and the plaintiff's threats to report suspected forgery were legitimate; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$375,000 with interest and costs.

Citation
LIU MAN CHUEN EDDY v. LO MING SAN
Parties
Plaintiff: Liu Man Chuen Eddy; Defendant: Lo Ming San
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
31 May 2017
Case Number
DCCJ3970/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract / Summary Judgment Application (order 14)
Outcome
Judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$375,000 with interest and costs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Economic Duress, Undue Influence, Settlement Agreement, Forgery Allegation, Interim Payment
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Equity Commercial Law Summary Judgment Economic Duress Undue Influence Settlement Agreement +2 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liu Man Chuen Eddy

Plaintiff

Lo Ming San

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract / Summary Judgment Application (order 14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant breached the July 2011 contract to procure the cross-border licence
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Agreement of 16 July 2014 was voidable for illegitimate pressure/duress/undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had a real and arguable defence warranting a trial rather than summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove any legitimate defence or that the Settlement Agreement was procured by illegitimate pressure, duress or undue influence; the alleged 'clerical omission' was implausible and unsupported and the plaintiff's threats to report suspected forgery were legitimate; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$375,000 with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$375,000 with interest and costs

Orders

  • Judgment entered in favour of the plaintiff in the sum of HK$375,000 with interest calculated from 24 July 2014 at 1% above prime until date of judgment and thereafter at judgment rate.
  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the action, including the costs of filing the 3rd affirmation and the adjournment on 2 March 2017, with certificate for counsel.