HONOUR STAR HOLDINGS LTD v. FORTUNE NINE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

HONOUR STAR HOLDINGS LTD v. FORTUNE NINE COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Summary judgment and related orders were refused and the summons dismissed because the relief sought would materially affect the interests of the 2nd-12th Defendants who had not been served, the declaratory relief lacked practical utility in the circumstances, the WhatsApp message relied on was not a clear admission sufficient for judgment under Order 27, and the 1st Defendant's defence contained arguable points; accordingly the striking out application failed and summary assessment awarded costs to the 1st Defendant.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 3193
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; 1st Defendant: 1st Defendant; 2nd 12th Defendants: 2nd-12th Defendants
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 July 2025
Case Number
HCA603/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Property / Summary Judgment Application (order 14); Ancillary Applications Under Order 27 and Striking Out)
Outcome
Plaintiff's summons dismissed; application for summary judgment refused; application for judgment upon admission refused; application to strike out the 1st Defendant's defence refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Specific Performance, Declaratory Relief, Service Out of Jurisdiction, Striking Out, Judgment Upon Admission (order 27)
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Property Law Equity/trusts Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Specific Performance Declaratory Relief Service Out of Jurisdiction +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

1st Defendant

2nd-12th Defendants

2nd 12th Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract and Property / Summary Judgment Application (order 14); Ancillary Applications Under Order 27 and Striking Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Development Agreement existed between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff requested Cheery Consultants to cause the 2nd-12th Defendants to re-assign the Lots
  3. 3 Whether the 1st Defendant is obliged and able to cause the 2nd-12th Defendants to re-assign the Lots

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment and related orders were refused and the summons dismissed because the relief sought would materially affect the interests of the 2nd-12th Defendants who had not been served, the declaratory relief lacked practical utility in the circumstances, the WhatsApp message relied on was not a clear admission sufficient for judgment under Order 27, and the 1st Defendant's defence contained arguable points; accordingly the striking out application failed and summary assessment awarded costs to the 1st Defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's summons dismissed; application for summary judgment refused; application for judgment upon admission refused; application to strike out the 1st Defendant's defence refused.

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Plaintiff to pay the 1st Defendant's costs