FITTO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD v. FANTASY FILM CITY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

FITTO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD v. FANTASY FILM CITY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The Master correctly entered final summary judgment because the pleaded defences disclosed no triable issue: the Share Agreement was valid and performed; the loan agreements expressly required repayment and the alleged collateral agreement was inherently inconsistent and not credible; payment to Hapus was evidenced and did not require exhaustive accounting by Emperor; and the economic duress defence to the Licence Agreement was inadequately particularised, contradicted by conduct and therefore hopeless.

Citation
FITTO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD v. FANTASY FILM CITY CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 4810): Fitto Entertainment Company Limited; 1st Defendant (hca 4810): Fantasy Film City Co. Ltd.; 2nd Defendant (hca 4810) / Defendant (hca 4811): Ip Chi Ming Jimmy alias Ip Chi Ming; 1st Plaintiff (hca 4811): Emperor Finance Limited; 2nd Plaintiff (hca 4811): Richfield Development Ltd.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 December 1997
Case Number
HCA4810/1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial Disputes — Appeals From Master's Summary Judgment Orders / Appeal Decided (reasons for Judgment Handed Down)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Economic Duress, Consideration, Collateral Agreement, Assignment, Repayment of Loans, Licence Agreement, Order 14 Leave to Defend, Parol Evidence/contractual Interpretation
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Equity Summary Judgment Economic Duress Consideration Collateral Agreement Assignment +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 5 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fitto Entertainment Company Limited

Plaintiff (hca 4810)

Fantasy Film City Co. Ltd.

1st Defendant (hca 4810)

Ip Chi Ming Jimmy alias Ip Chi Ming

2nd Defendant (hca 4810) / Defendant (hca 4811)

Emperor Finance Limited

1st Plaintiff (hca 4811)

Richfield Development Ltd.

2nd Plaintiff (hca 4811)

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial Disputes — Appeals From Master's Summary Judgment Orders / Appeal Decided (reasons for Judgment Handed Down)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Share Agreement was void for mistake or for want of consideration
  2. 2 Whether Emperor's loan agreements were enforceable and required repayment despite obligations between Ip and Hapus
  3. 3 Whether an alleged collateral agreement delayed repayment and could override express loan terms

Ratio Decidendi

The Master correctly entered final summary judgment because the pleaded defences disclosed no triable issue: the Share Agreement was valid and performed; the loan agreements expressly required repayment and the alleged collateral agreement was inherently inconsistent and not credible; payment to Hapus was evidenced and did not require exhaustive accounting by Emperor; and the economic duress defence to the Licence Agreement was inadequately particularised, contradicted by conduct and therefore hopeless.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Final judgment entered for the plaintiffs in each action