MANCIPLE LTD. v. CHAR ON MAN

MANCIPLE LTD. v. CHAR ON MAN

The Court concluded the defendant's factual account was inherently incredible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, and that the asserted illegality under Japanese law was not an arguable defence because the shares were not registered in the defendant's name and holding as nominee (or via...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MANCIPLE LTD. v. CHAR ON MAN
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: MANCIPLE LIMITED; Respondent/defendant: CHAR ON MAN
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 July 1995
Case Number
CACV64/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (order 14 Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Summary Judgment Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Findlay J's order setting aside Master Jennings' summary judgment set aside and Master Jennings' summary judgment reinstated
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Margin Trading Accounts, Agency and Ostensible Authority, Illegality Under Foreign Law, Service of Account Statements and Margin Calls
Source Language
en
Contract Civil Procedure Agency Private International Law Summary Judgment Margin Trading Accounts Agency and Ostensible Authority Illegality Under Foreign Law +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MANCIPLE LIMITED

Appellant/plaintiff

CHAR ON MAN

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (order 14 Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Interlocutory Summary Judgment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant raised a triable or arguable defence to summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether Mr Note remained Sanyo's agent so as to make defendant's oral instruction to sell effective
  3. 3 Whether alleged Japanese law prohibition rendered the contract illegal and unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The Court concluded the defendant's factual account was inherently incredible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, and that the asserted illegality under Japanese law was not an arguable defence because the shares were not registered in the defendant's name and holding as nominee (or via Japanese juridical entities) did not render the contract unenforceable; accordingly there was no triable issue and summary judgment was properly entered and should be reinstated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Findlay J's order setting aside Master Jennings' summary judgment set aside and Master Jennings' summary judgment reinstated

Orders

  • Allow appeal
  • Set aside judgment of Findlay J