HONDA HAJIME AND ANOTHER v. LIU YEN CHU PETER

HONDA HAJIME AND ANOTHER v. LIU YEN CHU PETER

On undisputed documentary evidence from the bank and accounting reports the defendant had no arguable defence to the claims for $354,798 and $1,260,542.32, so summary judgment was entered for those sums with interest; however the claim for $300,000 involved triable issues as the supplemental deed constituted a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HONDA HAJIME AND ANOTHER v. LIU YEN CHU PETER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HONDA HAJIME; 2nd Plaintiff: YAMAGUCHI MIDORI; Defendant: LIU YEN CHU PETER
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Case Number
HCA1742/2006
Procedural Posture
Action for Moneys Had and Received; Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 RHC / Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for plaintiffs in respect of two monetary claims; defendant granted leave to defend the third claim; costs ordered nisi
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Moneys Had and Received, Misrepresentation, Mistake, Deed, Accounting, Overdrawn Fiduciary Account, Leave to Defend
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Contract Equity Restitution Accountancy of Trusts Summary Judgment Moneys Had and Received Misrepresentation +5 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HONDA HAJIME

1st Plaintiff

YAMAGUCHI MIDORI

2nd Plaintiff

LIU YEN CHU PETER

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Action for Moneys Had and Received; Application for Summary Judgment Under Order 14 RHC / Summary Judgment Application / Interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant wrongfully withdrew plaintiffs' funds and is liable for specified sums
  2. 2 Whether there is an arguable defence requiring a trial as to each claimed sum
  3. 3 Whether the supplemental deed of 7 July 2004 can be set aside for mistake or misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

On undisputed documentary evidence from the bank and accounting reports the defendant had no arguable defence to the claims for $354,798 and $1,260,542.32, so summary judgment was entered for those sums with interest; however the claim for $300,000 involved triable issues as the supplemental deed constituted a compromise and alleged mistake/misrepresentation required trial, so the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend that claim.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for plaintiffs in respect of two monetary claims; defendant granted leave to defend the third claim; costs ordered nisi

Orders

  • Judgment for plaintiffs for $354,798 payable by defendant
  • Judgment for plaintiffs for $1,260,542.32 payable by defendant