GRADE ONE LTD v. CHOW CHIN YUI, ANGELA AND OTHERS

GRADE ONE LTD v. CHOW CHIN YUI, ANGELA AND OTHERS

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an arguable, let alone strong, defence based on the alleged secret repayment because the relied-on documents are speculative and do not establish repayment; the defence is inconsistent with earlier pleaded positions; there is significant unexplained delay in seeking to adduce the new evidence such that admission on appeal is uncertain; and there is insufficient evidence that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay. Accordingly the stay was refused and indemnity costs awarded.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 49
Parties
1st Plaintiff: GRADE ONE LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: SURPLUS GAIN GLOBAL LIMITED; 3rd Plaintiff: LAU WANG CHI, BARRY; 1st Defendant: CHOW CHIN YUI, ANGELA; 2nd Defendant: CHAN SAI ON, BILL; 3rd Defendant: CACHET ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED; 4th Defendant: CACHET MULTI STRATEGY FUND SPC; 5th Defendant: HIGH POINT PROPERTIES LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 January 2024
Case Number
HCA494/2021
Procedural Posture
Stay of Execution Pending Appeal (post Judgment Application) / Chambers Hearing on Summons After Summary Judgment
Outcome
Summons for stay of execution dismissed
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Summary Judgment, Admission of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall), Guarantee, Statutory Demand, Discovery
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Insolvency Stay of Execution Summary Judgment Admission of Fresh Evidence (ladd V Marshall) Guarantee Statutory Demand +1 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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

GRADE ONE LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

SURPLUS GAIN GLOBAL LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

LAU WANG CHI, BARRY

3rd Plaintiff

CHOW CHIN YUI, ANGELA

1st Defendant

CHAN SAI ON, BILL

2nd Defendant

CACHET ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED

3rd Defendant

CACHET MULTI STRATEGY FUND SPC

4th Defendant

HIGH POINT PROPERTIES LIMITED

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay of Execution Pending Appeal (post Judgment Application) / Chambers Hearing on Summons After Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs have an arguable/strong ground of appeal based on newly discovered documents
  3. 3 Whether purported new evidence of a secret repayment can be admitted on appeal (Ladd v Marshall issues)

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate an arguable, let alone strong, defence based on the alleged secret repayment because the relied-on documents are speculative and do not establish repayment; the defence is inconsistent with earlier pleaded positions; there is significant unexplained delay in seeking to adduce the new evidence such that admission on appeal is uncertain; and there is insufficient evidence that the appeal would be rendered nugatory absent a stay. Accordingly the stay was refused and indemnity costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Summons for stay of execution dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Costs of and occasioned by the summons to be paid by the Plaintiffs to the 3rd and 4th Defendants on an indemnity basis, to be summarily assessed