溢利印刷包裝(中國)有限公司 v. KARPEX (HK) LTD

溢利印刷包裝(中國)有限公司 v. KARPEX (HK) LTD

The court found the Plaintiff had raised an arguable set-off with prima facie evidence that the set-off exceeded the counterclaim, therefore the Plaintiff was entitled to leave to defend the counterclaim; further, the Defendant failed to demonstrate on current evidence that the Plaintiff would be unable to pay costs if ordered, so the applications for summary judgment on the counterclaim and for security for costs were dismissed.

Citation
溢利印刷包裝(中國)有限公司 v. KARPEX (HK) LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; Defendant: Defendant
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 December 2005
Case Number
DCCJ4102/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract (sale of Goods) / Summary Judgment and Security for Costs Applications (consolidated Actions)
Outcome
Defendant's application for summary judgment on the counterclaim and for security for costs dismissed; Plaintiff granted leave to defend the counterclaim; order nisi for costs to Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Security for Costs, Set Off, Exemption Clauses, Merchantable Quality, Acceptance of Goods, Latent Defects
Source Language
EN
Contract Law Sale of Goods Company Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Security for Costs Set Off Exemption Clauses +3 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract (sale of Goods) / Summary Judgment and Security for Costs Applications (consolidated Actions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is any defence to the Defendant's counterclaim for the price of goods
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff has an arguable equitable or legal set-off against the counterclaim
  3. 3 Whether the exemption clause requiring notice within 7 days is reasonable and effective to exclude liability for latent defects

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the Plaintiff had raised an arguable set-off with prima facie evidence that the set-off exceeded the counterclaim, therefore the Plaintiff was entitled to leave to defend the counterclaim; further, the Defendant failed to demonstrate on current evidence that the Plaintiff would be unable to pay costs if ordered, so the applications for summary judgment on the counterclaim and for security for costs were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for summary judgment on the counterclaim and for security for costs dismissed; Plaintiff granted leave to defend the counterclaim; order nisi for costs to Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendant's application for summary judgment in respect of the counterclaim dismissed
  • Defendant's application for security for costs dismissed