SAM WOO SHIP BUILDING LTD v. HO KWOK POON AND OTHERS

SAM WOO SHIP BUILDING LTD v. HO KWOK POON AND OTHERS

The loan agreement was clear and unambiguous; under the parol evidence and four corners rules extrinsic or oral evidence could not vary or contradict its terms, therefore the defendants had no defence and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the principal, interest and costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SAM WOO SHIP BUILDING LTD v. HO KWOK POON AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: SAM WOO SHIP BUILDING LIMITED; 1st Defendant: HO KWOK POON; 2nd Defendant: WING WO (CIVIL) LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: CHEUK KING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2006
Case Number
DCCJ384/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Debt Recovery / Judgment Delivered in Chambers
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants
Legal Topics
Parol Evidence Rule, Interpretation of Written Contract, Interest, Costs, Loan Agreement
Source Language
en
Contract Evidence Civil Procedure Parol Evidence Rule Interpretation of Written Contract Interest Costs Loan Agreement

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAM WOO SHIP BUILDING LIMITED

Plaintiff

HO KWOK POON

1st Defendant

WING WO (CIVIL) LIMITED

2nd Defendant

CHEUK KING

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Debt Recovery / Judgment Delivered in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extrinsic/oral evidence can be used to vary or contradict the written loan agreement
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have any defence to the plaintiff's claim under the written loan agreement
  3. 3 Entitlement to interest and costs

Ratio Decidendi

The loan agreement was clear and unambiguous; under the parol evidence and four corners rules extrinsic or oral evidence could not vary or contradict its terms, therefore the defendants had no defence and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the principal, interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against all defendants in the sum of $500,000
  • Interest at 2 per cent above prime rate per annum published by HSBC from 13 November 2003 until 22 June 2006