MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

MAYER CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. ALLIANCE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE LTD AND OTHERS

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding it was not plain and obvious that Mayer’s contention on adoption of fraud was unsustainable and that the strike out judge erred in dismissing Mayer’s claim against the 4th and 5th defendants. The 2016 handwriting expert reports constituted new evidence and met the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKCA 777
Parties
Plaintiff (appellant): Mayer Corporation Development International Limited; 1st Defendant: Alliance Financial Intelligence Limited; 2nd Defendant: Chan Wai Dune Charles; 3rd Defendant: Lam Chin Chun; 4th Defendant (respondent): Bumper East Limited; 5th Defendant (respondent): Aspial Investment Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 July 2019
Case Number
CACV66/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Plaintiff's Claim Against 4th and 5th Defendants (court of Appeal Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judge's order striking out claim against 4th and 5th defendants set aside; leave granted to amend statement of claim
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud, Adoption of Fraud, New Evidence on Fraud, Reasonable Diligence Requirement, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel, Strike Out Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Equity Company/share Law Evidence Law Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud Adoption of Fraud New Evidence on Fraud Reasonable Diligence Requirement +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayer Corporation Development International Limited

Plaintiff (appellant)

Alliance Financial Intelligence Limited

1st Defendant

Chan Wai Dune Charles

2nd Defendant

Lam Chin Chun

3rd Defendant

Bumper East Limited

4th Defendant (respondent)

Aspial Investment Limited

5th Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Plaintiff's Claim Against 4th and 5th Defendants (court of Appeal Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the fraud of one party may be treated as adopted by a co‑party who did not knowingly procure or have knowledge of the fraud
  2. 2 Whether the further evidence relied on by the plaintiff qualifies as new evidence
  3. 3 Whether a reasonable diligence requirement applies before a party may bring a fresh action to set aside a judgment for fraud

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding it was not plain and obvious that Mayer’s contention on adoption of fraud was unsustainable and that the strike out judge erred in dismissing Mayer’s claim against the 4th and 5th defendants. The 2016 handwriting expert reports constituted new evidence and met the materiality threshold because they could establish conscious and deliberate dishonesty that was an operative cause of the earlier judgment; therefore the action to set aside the earlier judgments for fraud could not be struck out at this stage. Leave to amend was permitted and the strike out order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judge's order striking out claim against 4th and 5th defendants set aside; leave granted to amend statement of claim

Orders

  • Order setting aside the strike out order made 7 February 2017
  • Leave granted to plaintiff to amend the statement of claim as per draft filed 21 November 2016