FUJITA MORIYUKI v. TONG XIAOSHENG

FUJITA MORIYUKI v. TONG XIAOSHENG

The appeal is dismissed because Tong failed to raise any credible triable issues: the Locked Debt Claim is inherently improbable and legally barred by the SPA (entire agreement and exclusion clauses) and inadequate pleading; the Vehicle Claim lacks factual basis, legal duty and mutuality for equitable set-off; Tong failed to particularise defences adequately, so summary judgment was properly entered.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1768
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (counterclaim): Fujita Moriyuki; Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim): Tong Xiaosheng; 2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim): Farbell Investments Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 July 2020
Case Number
HCA1128/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Appeal Against Summary Judgment / Hearing of Appeal (chambers)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Set Off, Misrepresentation, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Conversion, Entire Agreement Clause
Source Language
EN
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Equity Tort (misrepresentation) Summary Judgment Set Off Misrepresentation +3 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 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fujita Moriyuki

Plaintiff (original Action); Defendant (counterclaim)

Tong Xiaosheng

Defendant (original Action); 1st Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Farbell Investments Limited

2nd Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Appeal Against Summary Judgment / Hearing of Appeal (chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant raised credible triable issues to resist summary judgment under RHC O 14
  2. 2 Whether the Locked Debt Claim is an arguable contractual claim or claim in misrepresentation
  3. 3 Whether the Vehicle Claim can form an equitable set-off against plaintiff’s claim

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because Tong failed to raise any credible triable issues: the Locked Debt Claim is inherently improbable and legally barred by the SPA (entire agreement and exclusion clauses) and inadequate pleading; the Vehicle Claim lacks factual basis, legal duty and mutuality for equitable set-off; Tong failed to particularise defences adequately, so summary judgment was properly entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Order nisi that costs of the appeal be to Fujita, to be taxed if not agreed, and paid by Tong forthwith, certificate for 2 Counsel
  • Summary judgment and judgment sum in favour of Fujita for HK$4,764,806.87 as previously entered by Master K W Wong