ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD

ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD

Because three of the four alleged clauses of the Second Oral Agreement are contained in the written Termination Agreement and there is no credible contemporaneous evidence for the additional alleged reimbursement term, the alleged Second Oral Agreement was collateral and not independently proved; the defendant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
ROYCE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES LTD v. COUNTER WIN INVESTMENT LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 August 2006
Case Number
DCCJ3111/2005
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Judgment Application Under Order 14, District Court / Application for Summary/interlocutory Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff for HK$257,800 with interest and costs
Legal Topics
Termination Agreement, Oral Collateral Agreement, Summary Judgment, Counterclaim and Set Off, Evidence Credibility
Source Language
en
Contract Property/lease Civil Procedure Termination Agreement Oral Collateral Agreement Summary Judgment Counterclaim and Set Off Evidence Credibility

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Judgment Application Under Order 14, District Court / Application for Summary/interlocutory Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged Second Oral Agreement existed
  2. 2 Whether the Second Oral Agreement was independent or collateral to the written Termination Agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's counterclaim for HK$257,800 is credible and constitutes a triable issue

Ratio Decidendi

Because three of the four alleged clauses of the Second Oral Agreement are contained in the written Termination Agreement and there is no credible contemporaneous evidence for the additional alleged reimbursement term, the alleged Second Oral Agreement was collateral and not independently proved; the defendant's counterclaim was not credible and did not raise a triable issue, entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment for HK$257,800 plus interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff for HK$257,800 with interest and costs

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of HK$257,800.00 together with interest at the judgment rate from date of writ until full payment.
  • Costs of the plaintiff's Order 14 application and the claim to the plaintiff, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed if not agreed.