CHEER GIANT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WO MING ENGINEERING LTD

CHEER GIANT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WO MING ENGINEERING LTD

Defendant's account was found inherently incredible and contradicted documentary evidence; parol evidence and non est factum defences failed; there was no triable issue and the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for HK$202,500 with interest and the Defendant's counter-claim was struck out.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CHEER GIANT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. WO MING ENGINEERING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 April 2007
Case Number
DCCJ4872/2006
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute / Summary Judgment and Striking Out Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff; Defendant's counter-claim struck out; costs awarded to Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Prolongation Costs, Incentive Payment, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Counter Claim, Parol Evidence Rule, Non Est Factum, Credibility of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Extension of Time Prolongation Costs Incentive Payment Summary Judgment Striking Out Counter Claim +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute / Summary Judgment and Striking Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to incentive payments under the written contract
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant may rely on a contrary verbal agreement or parol evidence to vary the written contract
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant's pleas (including non est factum and inducement) are credible and amount to a triable issue

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant's account was found inherently incredible and contradicted documentary evidence; parol evidence and non est factum defences failed; there was no triable issue and the Plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for HK$202,500 with interest and the Defendant's counter-claim was struck out.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for Plaintiff; Defendant's counter-claim struck out; costs awarded to Plaintiff

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for the sum of HK$202,500 with interest at judgment rate from date of writ of summons until payment
  • The Defendant's counter-claim is struck out under Order 18 rule 19 of RDC