SKYTRUCK INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LAU NAI KEUNG

SKYTRUCK INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LAU NAI KEUNG

The Court held the guarantee clause was not a conclusive evidence clause because it did not use the word "conclusive" and allowed for future adjustment; given the late discovery of a materially different balance sheet and an accountants' report raising serious questions about the plaintiff's claimed indebtedness,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SKYTRUCK INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LAU NAI KEUNG
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Skytruck International Limited; Defendant (appellant): Lau Nai Keung
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 March 1999
Case Number
CACV226/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (order 14)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order below set aside; conditional leave to defend granted to the appellant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conclusive Evidence Clause, Statement of Account, Personal Guarantee, Alleged Fraud, Leave to Defend, Security for Costs, Balance Sheet Reliability
Source Language
en
Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Guarantee Company Law Summary Judgment Conclusive Evidence Clause Statement of Account +5 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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Skytruck International Limited

Plaintiff (respondent)

Lau Nai Keung

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment (order 14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee clause operated as a conclusive evidence clause binding the guarantor to the statement of account
  2. 2 Whether the defendant had shown that the statement of account was inaccurate on its face or that fraud had been established such as to defeat summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had an arguable defence based on alternative balance sheets, accountants' report and validity of directors' resolutions sufficient to obtain leave to defend

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the guarantee clause was not a conclusive evidence clause because it did not use the word "conclusive" and allowed for future adjustment; given the late discovery of a materially different balance sheet and an accountants' report raising serious questions about the plaintiff's claimed indebtedness, the defendant had an arguable defence and should be granted conditional leave to defend rather than be shut out by summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order below set aside; conditional leave to defend granted to the appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order below set aside