GOEI TSUSHO CO LTD v. LEADER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

GOEI TSUSHO CO LTD v. LEADER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was granted because the 1st Defendant demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2): there are non‑fanciful grounds that the judge may have erred in characterising certain findings as primary rather than inferential and that the documents relied on may not have constituted representations by the 1st Defendant that the 2nd Defendant had authority; accordingly the threshold for leave was met.

Citation
GOEI TSUSHO CO LTD v. LEADER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: 1st Defendant; Defendant: 2nd Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 January 2010
Case Number
DCCJ4581/2005
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted to the 1st Defendant; stay of execution pending appeal granted upon payment into court of JP 12,660,500 within 14 days; costs in the cause with certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed; costs order to become absolute in 14 days.
Legal Topics
Apparent/ostensible Authority, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Representation, Evidentiary Findings (primary Facts V Inferences)
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Agency Contract Appeals Company Law Apparent/ostensible Authority Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution +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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

1st Defendant

Defendant

2nd Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal (civil) / Application for Leave to Appeal and Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s63A(2) (reasonable prospect of success or interests of justice)
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant is liable on the basis of apparent/ostensible authority of the 2nd Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the documents relied on amounted to representations by the 1st Defendant that the 2nd Defendant had authority to contract

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted because the 1st Defendant demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2): there are non‑fanciful grounds that the judge may have erred in characterising certain findings as primary rather than inferential and that the documents relied on may not have constituted representations by the 1st Defendant that the 2nd Defendant had authority; accordingly the threshold for leave was met.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted to the 1st Defendant; stay of execution pending appeal granted upon payment into court of JP 12,660,500 within 14 days; costs in the cause with certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed; costs order to become absolute in 14 days.

Orders

  • Costs to be in the cause of the appeal of the 1st Defendant with certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed; the costs order shall become absolute in 14 days