CHIN SHU HUEY v. OFELIA BENNETT and Another

CHIN SHU HUEY v. OFELIA BENNETT and Another

The Court of Appeal held the strike out application under O.18 r.19 and invocation of inherent jurisdiction was misplaced because the statement of claim disclosed a prima facie cause on the dishonoured cheques and disputed factual allegations (misrepresentation and gambling debt) required trial; summary judgment was inappropriate and the judge correctly granted unconditional leave to defend and ordered costs in the cause; the appellant's appeal was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs of the appeal.

Citation
CHIN SHU HUEY v. OFELIA BENNETT and Another
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Chin Shu Huey; 1st Defendant: Ofelia Bennett; 2nd Defendant/appellant: Anthony Bennett
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 May 1995
Case Number
CACV105/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Appeal From Master and Judge in Chambers; Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment (o.14) and Strike Out (o.18 R.19)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Strike Out for No Cause of Action/scandalous/frivolous/vexatious (order 18 R19), Inherent Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process, Leave to Defend, Dishonoured Cheques, Defence of Gambling Debt
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Contract Negotiable Instruments/cheques Gambling Law Summary Judgment (order 14) Strike Out for No Cause of Action/scandalous/frivolous/vexatious (order 18 R19) Inherent Jurisdiction Abuse of Process +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 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chin Shu Huey

Plaintiff/respondent

Ofelia Bennett

1st Defendant

Anthony Bennett

2nd Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (interlocutory) / Appeal From Master and Judge in Chambers; Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment (o.14) and Strike Out (o.18 R.19)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim on eight dishonoured cheques should be struck out under O.18 r.19
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment under O.14 was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether alleged gambling debts and representations by the 1st defendant extinguish the 2nd defendant's liability on the cheques

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the strike out application under O.18 r.19 and invocation of inherent jurisdiction was misplaced because the statement of claim disclosed a prima facie cause on the dishonoured cheques and disputed factual allegations (misrepresentation and gambling debt) required trial; summary judgment was inappropriate and the judge correctly granted unconditional leave to defend and ordered costs in the cause; the appellant's appeal was dismissed and he was ordered to pay costs of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Appellant to pay the costs of the appeal on a common fund basis, to be taxed and paid forthwith