POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD

POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD

The application for leave was dismissed because the Defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition by not showing the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and also failed to show the evidence would probably have had an important influence or raised a triable issue to resist summary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1591
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
20 June 2019
Case Number
HCA2851/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal Against Summary Judgment (order 14) / Interlocutory: Application for Leave (not the Appeal Hearing)
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Leave to Adduce Further Evidence, Summary Judgment, Ladd V Marshall Test, Triable Issue, Margin Calls, Alleged Conspiracy, Price Manipulation
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Appeal Evidence Commercial Law Securities Leave to Adduce Further Evidence Summary Judgment Ladd V Marshall Test +4 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal Against Summary Judgment (order 14) / Interlocutory: Application for Leave (not the Appeal Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence on appeal against summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the Ladd v Marshall conditions are satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave was dismissed because the Defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition by not showing the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and also failed to show the evidence would probably have had an important influence or raised a triable issue to resist summary judgment; accordingly leave is refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for leave to adduce further evidence dismissed.
  • Costs to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff.