SINCERE SECURITIES LTD. v. LI MOU TONG, VINCENT

SINCERE SECURITIES LTD. v. LI MOU TONG, VINCENT

The appeal was allowed because the plaintiff's evidence as to formation and existence of a written indemnity term was inconsistent and unreliable, producing genuine triable issues (including lack of consideration and duress) which precluded disposal by summary judgment; accordingly the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

Citation
SINCERE SECURITIES LTD. v. LI MOU TONG, VINCENT
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Sincere Securities Limited; Defendant/appellant: Li Mou Tong, Vincent
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 June 2002
Case Number
CACV2177/2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From HCA No.255 of 2001 (challenge to Summary Judgment/leave to Defend)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; costs order made by way of order nisi.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Duress, Consideration, Indemnity Clause, Custom of Trade, Service Agreement, Evidence Credibility
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Employment Commercial Securities Summary Judgment Duress Consideration +4 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sincere Securities Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Li Mou Tong, Vincent

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From HCA No.255 of 2001 (challenge to Summary Judgment/leave to Defend)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment or leave to defend should be granted unconditionally
  2. 2 Whether an indemnity clause formed part of the defendant's service agreement such as to discharge lack of consideration objection
  3. 3 Whether the defendant signed the service agreement and cheques under duress

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the plaintiff's evidence as to formation and existence of a written indemnity term was inconsistent and unreliable, producing genuine triable issues (including lack of consideration and duress) which precluded disposal by summary judgment; accordingly the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; costs order made by way of order nisi.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed.
  • Defendant (appellant) given unconditional leave to defend.