POMATO PRO CO., LTD. TAKAHIRO TANAKA AND ANOTHER v. CHOW NGAI KEUNG ALEX AND ANOTHER

POMATO PRO CO., LTD. TAKAHIRO TANAKA AND ANOTHER v. CHOW NGAI KEUNG ALEX AND ANOTHER

The court found the defendant gave the guarantee (first orally and then evidenced in two documents), there was consideration in the plaintiffs' continuation of investment, the guarantee covered both projects with a deadline of 31 October 2007, the defendant failed to procure BOGOC approval by that date and did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
POMATO PRO CO., LTD. TAKAHIRO TANAKA AND ANOTHER v. CHOW NGAI KEUNG ALEX AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: POMATO PRO CO., LTD.; 2nd Plaintiff: takahiro tanaka; 1st Defendant: CHOW NGAI KEUNG ALEX (also known as ALEX CHOW); 2nd Defendant: POMATO ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 March 2011
Case Number
HCA2640/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Breach of Guarantee and Misrepresentation / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant; default judgment previously entered against 2nd defendant
Legal Topics
Personal Guarantee, Misrepresentation, Consideration, Shareholders Agreement, Sponsorship Obligations, Approval by Regulatory Authority (bogoc), Refund of Investment
Source Language
en
Contract Tort Company Law Civil Procedure Personal Guarantee Misrepresentation Consideration Shareholders Agreement +3 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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

POMATO PRO CO., LTD.

1st Plaintiff

takahiro tanaka

2nd Plaintiff

CHOW NGAI KEUNG ALEX (also known as ALEX CHOW)

1st Defendant

POMATO ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD.

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Breach of Guarantee and Misrepresentation / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the defendant give the guarantee?
  2. 2 Was there valid consideration for the guarantee?
  3. 3 What were the terms of the guarantee (scope and deadline)?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the defendant gave the guarantee (first orally and then evidenced in two documents), there was consideration in the plaintiffs' continuation of investment, the guarantee covered both projects with a deadline of 31 October 2007, the defendant failed to procure BOGOC approval by that date and did not prove deductible expenses; accordingly the plaintiffs were entitled to refund of the investment money (HK$2,500,000 to Pomato Pro and HK$200,000 to Mr Tanaka) plus interest and costs orders as stated.

Court Disposition

Judgment for plaintiffs against 1st defendant; default judgment previously entered against 2nd defendant

Orders

  • Defendant Chow NgaI Keung Alex do refund HK$2,500,000 to Pomato Pro Co., Ltd.
  • Defendant Chow NgaI Keung Alex do refund HK$200,000 to Takahiro Tanaka