NG SHOU CHUN v. HUNG CHUN SAN

NG SHOU CHUN v. HUNG CHUN SAN

Although the defendant's denial of receipt of the deposit was held to be incredible, the Court found triable issues as to the true nature of the transaction (whether it was a disguised loan/charge) and the money‑lender defence; consequently summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend must be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
NG SHOU CHUN v. HUNG CHUN SAN
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: NG SHOU CHUN; Respondent/defendant: HUNG CHUN SAN
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 January 1994
Case Number
CACV182/1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Application Under O.86; Leave to Defend Granted by Lower Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision below upheld; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; action to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (o.86), Sale and Purchase of Property, Deposit, Disguised Mortgage/charge, Money‑lending Defence, Leave to Defend
Source Language
en
Contract Equity Property Civil Procedure Moneylending Law Summary Judgment (o.86) Sale and Purchase of Property Deposit +3 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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG SHOU CHUN

Appellant/plaintiff

HUNG CHUN SAN

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Appeal From Summary Judgment Application Under O.86; Leave to Defend Granted by Lower Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be entered or leave to defend granted
  2. 2 Whether the HK$400,000 deposit was paid to the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the sale was in substance a loan secured by the property (disguised mortgage/charge)

Ratio Decidendi

Although the defendant's denial of receipt of the deposit was held to be incredible, the Court found triable issues as to the true nature of the transaction (whether it was a disguised loan/charge) and the money‑lender defence; consequently summary judgment was inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend must be granted so the matters can be decided at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision below upheld; defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; action to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted to the defendant (Order 86)