BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORPORATION v. GREYLAND TRADING LTD

BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORPORATION v. GREYLAND TRADING LTD

The Court upheld the judge below that the defendant had an arguable defence of agency and a potentially viable equitable set-off, making summary judgment inappropriate; however the appeal against the security for costs order succeeded because the security figure was excessive and insufficiently supported by acceptable material.

Citation
BESTWAY INFLATABLES & MATERIAL CORPORATION v. GREYLAND TRADING LTD
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Bestway Inflatables & Material Corporation; Defendant/respondent: Greyland Trading Limited
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 November 2003
Case Number
CACV104/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal, Hksar) / Appeal (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except allowed in relation to the order for security for costs; court ordered plaintiff to pay two thirds of the defendant's costs.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Defend, Agency, Equitable Set Off, Security for Costs, Costs Order
Source Language
EN
Contract Agency Civil Procedure Equity Costs and Security for Costs Summary Judgment Leave to Defend Equitable Set Off +2 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bestway Inflatables & Material Corporation

Plaintiff/appellant

Greyland Trading Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal, Hksar) / Appeal (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant was acting as agent for Aqua-Leisure Industries Inc.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has an arguable defence sufficient to defeat summary judgment and obtain leave to defend
  3. 3 Whether the defendant can rely on equitable set-off for defective goods

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the judge below that the defendant had an arguable defence of agency and a potentially viable equitable set-off, making summary judgment inappropriate; however the appeal against the security for costs order succeeded because the security figure was excessive and insufficiently supported by acceptable material.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except allowed in relation to the order for security for costs; court ordered plaintiff to pay two thirds of the defendant's costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed save as to the security for costs order
  • Appeal allowed on the security for costs order (security for costs order set aside/varied)