ORBITEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. v. TECHNO FACTOR (SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS) LTD. AND ANOTHER

ORBITEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. v. TECHNO FACTOR (SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS) LTD. AND ANOTHER

Summary judgment was refused because the defendants' pleaded and deposed case of a binding variation to the original contract, supported by signed minutes and factual assertions about non‑performance, raised a credible triable issue; it was inappropriate to determine the dispute on affidavits and documents without a trial; defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend.

Citation
ORBITEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. v. TECHNO FACTOR (SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS) LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: ORBITEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TECHNO FACTOR (SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: TECHNO FACTOR (DEVELOPMENT) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 August 1997
Case Number
HCCL292/1996
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 in Commercial Contract Dispute (breach of Contract) / Hearing of Summary Judgment Application; Judgment Reserved and Handed Down; Application Refused
Outcome
Summary judgment application dismissed; defendants granted unconditional leave to defend; costs reserved/in the cause
Legal Topics
Variation of Contract, Summary Judgment (order 14), Breach of Contract, Consideration, Credibility of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Evidence Variation of Contract Summary Judgment (order 14) Breach of Contract Consideration +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ORBITEL MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED

Plaintiff

TECHNO FACTOR (SYSTEM COMMUNICATIONS) LIMITED

1st Defendant

TECHNO FACTOR (DEVELOPMENT) LIMITED

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 in Commercial Contract Dispute (breach of Contract) / Hearing of Summary Judgment Application; Judgment Reserved and Handed Down; Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties validly varied the original written contract on 13 May 1996
  2. 2 Whether any purported variation was supported by consideration or constituted a mutual release
  3. 3 Whether the factual dispute about variation and performance is so incredible that summary judgment is appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused because the defendants' pleaded and deposed case of a binding variation to the original contract, supported by signed minutes and factual assertions about non‑performance, raised a credible triable issue; it was inappropriate to determine the dispute on affidavits and documents without a trial; defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment application dismissed; defendants granted unconditional leave to defend; costs reserved/in the cause

Orders

  • Summary judgment application refused/dismissed
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted to the 1st and 2nd Defendants