YUI CHUNG YIN v. NG KIT SUM

YUI CHUNG YIN v. NG KIT SUM

On the evidence the court preferred the defendant's contemporaneous invoices and account ledgers over the plaintiff's unsupported tables; the unit price included a HK$450 markup; the plaintiff had taken delivery of adaptors and was not entitled to a HK$130,000 cash rebate; defendant's claim for finance charge of HK$7,711.20 failed for lack of agreement; final accounting showed plaintiff owed defendant HK$730,147; defendant's insurance counterclaim for autopaid premiums succeeded (except contested finance charge).

Citation
YUI CHUNG YIN v. NG KIT SUM
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 2013
Case Number
HCA1826/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract and Insurance (commercial) / Trial Judgment (final)
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendant on account: Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant; Plaintiff's primary claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim successful except for the finance charge claim of HK$7,711.20; costs order nisi that Plaintiff shall bear Defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
Final Accounting, Refunds and Security Deposits, Contractual Interpretation, Documentary Evidence and Credibility, Policy Transfer and Autopay Liability
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Evidence Final Accounting Refunds and Security Deposits Contractual Interpretation +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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract and Insurance (commercial) / Trial Judgment (final)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the parties' accounts should be settled on the plaintiff's or defendant's figures (number of units delivered and unit prices)
  2. 2 Whether the HK$3,000,000 security deposit and subsequent refunds were properly applied and whether HK$300,000 or HK$130,000 rebates are due to the plaintiff
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's claimed financing charge of HK$7,711.20 is recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the court preferred the defendant's contemporaneous invoices and account ledgers over the plaintiff's unsupported tables; the unit price included a HK$450 markup; the plaintiff had taken delivery of adaptors and was not entitled to a HK$130,000 cash rebate; defendant's claim for finance charge of HK$7,711.20 failed for lack of agreement; final accounting showed plaintiff owed defendant HK$730,147; defendant's insurance counterclaim for autopaid premiums succeeded (except contested finance charge).

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendant on account: Plaintiff ordered to pay Defendant; Plaintiff's primary claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim successful except for the finance charge claim of HK$7,711.20; costs order nisi that Plaintiff shall bear Defendant's costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay Defendant HK$730,147 (final accounting)
  • Defendant's counterclaim for insurance premiums of US$25,641 (US$4,273.50 x 6 months) upheld