POON LEUNG CHOI v. YUNG KWOK WING AND ANOTHER

POON LEUNG CHOI v. YUNG KWOK WING AND ANOTHER

The court refused the 1st defendant's application for extension of time because his reason for delay (waiting to see the outcome of the 2nd defendant's appeal) was unacceptable and because his proposed defence relied on oral terms that would contradict the clear written loan agreement and therefore be inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; accordingly the Master's order of 22 April 2008 stands as to the 1st defendant.

Citation
POON LEUNG CHOI v. YUNG KWOK WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 August 2008
Case Number
HCA2324/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Hearing on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Master's Order (22 April 2008)
Outcome
Application by 1st defendant dismissed; order of Master Yuen dated 22 April 2008 upheld in respect of the 1st defendant; costs awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Extension of Time to Appeal, Admissibility of Oral Agreement, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Parol Evidence Rule Extension of Time to Appeal Admissibility of Oral Agreement Costs

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd Defendant

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Hearing on Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Against Master's Order (22 April 2008)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time for 1st defendant to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether proposed defence (oral agreement altering repayment terms) is admissible or barred by the parol evidence rule
  3. 3 Whether the Master's order of 22 April 2008 should be upheld in respect of the 1st defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the 1st defendant's application for extension of time because his reason for delay (waiting to see the outcome of the 2nd defendant's appeal) was unacceptable and because his proposed defence relied on oral terms that would contradict the clear written loan agreement and therefore be inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; accordingly the Master's order of 22 April 2008 stands as to the 1st defendant.

Court Disposition

Application by 1st defendant dismissed; order of Master Yuen dated 22 April 2008 upheld in respect of the 1st defendant; costs awarded to the plaintiff against the 1st defendant.

Orders

  • Application of the 1st defendant dismissed.
  • Order of Master Yuen dated 22 April 2008 insofar as it relates to the 1st defendant to stand in its entirety.