XIPHO DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. ST. CHARE CORPORATION LTD. and Others

XIPHO DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. ST. CHARE CORPORATION LTD. and Others

The appeal was allowed because there are triable issues of fact regarding the intention of the parties and the scope and duration of D2-D7's liability under the guarantees; summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend was granted.

Citation
XIPHO DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. v. ST. CHARE CORPORATION LTD. and Others
Parties
Plaintiff: XIPHO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant: ST. CHARE CORPORATION LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHINA ST. CHARE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: BEST TARGET POINT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 4th Defendant: SHEENEX LIMITED; 5th Defendant: EVA INDUSTRIES LIMITED; 6th Defendant: CHM PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED; 7th Defendant: WIDE SKY FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED; 8th Defendant: TSANG CHI; 9th Defendant: CHM HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 1997
Case Number
HCA1849/1996
Procedural Posture
Civil (summary Judgment) / Appeal From Master’s Summary Judgment; Leave to Defend Granted
Outcome
Appeal allowed; unconditional leave to defend granted to D2-D7; Order Nisi for costs to D2-D7
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee and Indemnity, Licensee Liability, Interpretation of Contractual Intention, Leave to Defend
Source Language
EN
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Guarantee and Indemnity Licensee Liability Interpretation of Contractual Intention Leave to Defend

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XIPHO DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED

Plaintiff

ST. CHARE CORPORATION LIMITED

1st Defendant

CHINA ST. CHARE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION LIMITED

2nd Defendant

BEST TARGET POINT INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED

3rd Defendant

SHEENEX LIMITED

4th Defendant

EVA INDUSTRIES LIMITED

5th Defendant

CHM PROPERTIES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

6th Defendant

WIDE SKY FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

7th Defendant

TSANG CHI

8th Defendant

CHM HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED

9th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (summary Judgment) / Appeal From Master’s Summary Judgment; Leave to Defend Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D2-D7 (licensees/guarantors) are liable for D1's arrears of rent and charges
  2. 2 Whether any liability of D2-D7 extends beyond the period of their occupation after they vacated
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate in the presence of factual issues concerning parties' intention

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because there are triable issues of fact regarding the intention of the parties and the scope and duration of D2-D7's liability under the guarantees; summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend was granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; unconditional leave to defend granted to D2-D7; Order Nisi for costs to D2-D7

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted to 2nd to 7th Defendants