VELCO ENTERPRISES LTD. v. HE-RO CHEMICALS LTD.

VELCO ENTERPRISES LTD. v. HE-RO CHEMICALS LTD.

The Court dismissed the appeal: Kaplan J was correct to find no defence and to enter judgment; damages are to be assessed at the contractual value of the cargo (US$74,960); the application to adduce further evidence on appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show the evidence could not have been obtained...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
VELCO ENTERPRISES LTD. v. HE-RO CHEMICALS LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): HE-RO CHEMICALS LTD; 1st Defendant (appellant): JEURO CONTAINER TRANSPORT (HK) LTD; 2nd Defendant: VELCO ENTERPRISES LTD
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 June 1993
Case Number
CACV43/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal From Order 14 Summons (summary Judgment) in Court of Appeal; Appeal From Decision of Kaplan J.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of Kaplan J affirmed; application for leave to call further evidence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Delivery of Goods, Admission of Fresh Evidence, Measure of Damages, Ladd V Marshall Test
Source Language
en
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Damages Summary Judgment Delivery of Goods Admission of Fresh Evidence Measure of Damages +1 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HE-RO CHEMICALS LTD

Plaintiff (respondent)

JEURO CONTAINER TRANSPORT (HK) LTD

1st Defendant (appellant)

VELCO ENTERPRISES LTD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal From Order 14 Summons (summary Judgment) in Court of Appeal; Appeal From Decision of Kaplan J.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant had a defence to the plaintiff's claim
  2. 2 Proper measure of damages for alleged short delivery and packing defects
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence could be admitted on appeal under Ladd v Marshall

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the appeal: Kaplan J was correct to find no defence and to enter judgment; damages are to be assessed at the contractual value of the cargo (US$74,960); the application to adduce further evidence on appeal was refused because the appellant failed to show the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence and thus did not satisfy the Ladd v Marshall test.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of Kaplan J affirmed; application for leave to call further evidence dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment entered for plaintiff affirmed