KEUNG SHEK CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. PT ARPENI PRATAMA OCEAN LINE Tbk. AND ANOTHER

KEUNG SHEK CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. PT ARPENI PRATAMA OCEAN LINE Tbk. AND ANOTHER

Leave to defend was properly granted but should be conditional on a substantial payment into court (70% of the claimed sum) because Grand Bulk's explanation for default was unsatisfactory and its bona fides questionable, while the defence raised factual issues of credibility sufficient to justify a trial rather than shutting Grand Bulk out.

Citation
KEUNG SHEK CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. PT ARPENI PRATAMA OCEAN LINE Tbk. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Keung Shek Cheung; 2nd Plaintiff: Soo Ying Pooi; 3rd Plaintiff: Wong Hon Chak; 1st Defendant: PT Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line Tbk.; 2nd Defendant: Grand Bulk Shipping Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 December 2016
Case Number
HCA678/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial/maritime Shareholder Dispute / Appeal Against Master's Order on Setting Aside Default Judgment and Leave to Defend (cross Appeal by Plaintiffs)
Outcome
Grand Bulk's appeal dismissed; plaintiffs' cross-appeal dismissed; leave to defend granted to Grand Bulk conditional on payment into court of 70% of the claimed sum; costs ordered nisi that parties bear their own costs
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Default Judgment, Leave to Defend, Payment Into Court, Oral Contract Formation, Corporate Veil/alter Ego, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Law Company Law Maritime Law Setting Aside Default Judgment Leave to Defend Payment Into Court Oral Contract Formation +2 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keung Shek Cheung

1st Plaintiff

Soo Ying Pooi

2nd Plaintiff

Wong Hon Chak

3rd Plaintiff

PT Arpeni Pratama Ocean Line Tbk.

1st Defendant

Grand Bulk Shipping Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial/maritime Shareholder Dispute / Appeal Against Master's Order on Setting Aside Default Judgment and Leave to Defend (cross Appeal by Plaintiffs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to defend should be granted to the 2nd defendant and default judgment set aside
  2. 2 Whether leave to defend should be conditional on a payment into court and, if so, the appropriate amount
  3. 3 Whether the alleged verbal agreement of 14 November 2008 is plausible and consistent with contemporaneous documents

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to defend was properly granted but should be conditional on a substantial payment into court (70% of the claimed sum) because Grand Bulk's explanation for default was unsatisfactory and its bona fides questionable, while the defence raised factual issues of credibility sufficient to justify a trial rather than shutting Grand Bulk out.

Court Disposition

Grand Bulk's appeal dismissed; plaintiffs' cross-appeal dismissed; leave to defend granted to Grand Bulk conditional on payment into court of 70% of the claimed sum; costs ordered nisi that parties bear their own costs

Orders

  • Grand Bulk's appeal dismissed
  • Plaintiffs' cross-appeal dismissed