Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim payment (order 29)

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2024

TSO MAN KUEN JASMINE v. POON CHUK HUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1467
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1379/2023

Dismiss application for summary judgment and interim payment because Plaintiff failed to comply with mandatory affidavit/verification requirements of Order 14 r2(1), sought relief based on allegations (fraud/money laundering) not pleaded in the statement of claim, and factual disputes exist that require trial; Plaintiff also failed to meet the high test for interim payment under Order 29 r11(1)(c).
16 Jun 2023

CRELAN SA v. YU MAY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 807
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5/2021

The court applied the predominant common law position that ministerial receipt ordinarily requires proof of payment over or a corresponding liability; the defendant failed to adduce sufficient, credible contemporaneous evidence to establish agency with Kincheng, payment over, or good faith; accordingly unconditional leave to defend was set aside and conditional leave granted on payment of US$255,998.06 into court; interim payment refused and security for costs of HK$180,000 upheld.
9 Jun 2023

AHS DEVICE HONGKONG LTD v. VT ZERO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1514
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA197/2022

The interim payment application was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to meet the high statutory threshold under O.29 rr.11(1)(c) and 12(c); there were genuine, reasonable and triable disputes on core matters (accuracy of defendant's records versus Back Market records, the incidence of liability for returns/refunds including possible incorporation of marketplace terms, and a reasonably arguable penalty defence to the late remittance charge) such that the court could not be satisfied that the plaintiff would obtain judgment for a substantial sum; consequently the proprietary injunction wa…
13 Jun 2005

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS v. CHEUNG WAI PUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8721/1996

Master held the court had jurisdiction to grant interim payment in a derivative action and exercised discretion to order payment into the 8th defendant's account with plaintiffs as signatory; accepted plaintiffs' expert methodology and 27.02% gross profit ratio because defendants failed to produce cost and transactional records and thus failed to discharge burden to account; rejected double‑counting objection on the facts and accepted inclusion of goodwill; ordered interim payment of HK$10,170,083 and directed further disclosure and inquiry as per the consent judgment.
22 Mar 2002

ANTHONY JOHN GETTY v. THE B.C.J. JOINT VENTURE

Citation

ANTHONY JOHN GETTY v. THE B.C.J. JOINT VENTURE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI719/2000

Summary judgment was refused because key factual issue (who built the path) was disputed and required testing by cross‑examination; the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend. However, on balance and on available medical and other evidence the court found a high probability of plaintiff's success on liability and ordered an interim payment of $300,000. Paragraph 3 of the Defence was struck out to the extent it improperly pleaded denials and defendant was permitted to amend to non‑admission. Costs order nisi made in favour of plaintiff for two thirds of costs of the applications.
23 Mar 2001

LEUNG SHING ON CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG SHING ON CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. v. WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT85/2000

The court applied the high but civil standard for interim payments under Order 29 and, balancing the parties' positions and the real risk of injustice to suppliers and plaintiff's imminent insolvency, concluded the first limb of the test was satisfied and awarded an interim payment of HK$1,200,000 to be paid to plaintiff's solicitors for payment of suppliers; contemporaneously, triable issues (notably alleged oral collateral agreements) made summary judgment inappropriate under Order 14; security for costs was dismissed because ordering it would probably stifle a bona fide claim and cause inj…
27 Nov 1998

ACTIVE PROFIT LTD. v. NISSHO IWAI HONG KONG CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

ACTIVE PROFIT LTD. v. NISSHO IWAI HONG KONG CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL47/1998

On the defendants' own case the deposit monies must be returned; accordingly the plaintiff met the high standard of Order 29 r12(c) and was entitled to interim payment of the principal sums claimed. The plaintiff need not concede or plead frustration as a precondition to interim payment. Interest and detailed terms to be determined at a short further hearing.
3 May 1991

CHUN LEE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. AOKI CORPORATION

Citation

CHUN LEE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. AOKI CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT19/1989

No implied retention clause could be established because the pleaded custom lacked the necessary precision and machinery and the court will not draft contractual mechanisms; on the O.14 test there was no triable issue as to the admitted retained sum and summary judgment was granted to plaintiffs for HK$620,000 with interest; the counterclaim was not struck out but required amendment and particularisation because as pleaded it was unparticularised and potentially abusive; specific procedural orders for discovery, inspection and experts were made and certain requests for particulars were refuse…
27 Oct 1988

B.I.S. CONSULTANTS LIMITED v. DAO HENG BANK LIMITED

Citation

B.I.S. CONSULTANTS LIMITED v. DAO HENG BANK LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2573/1987

The court refused to lift the corporate veil because the factual relationship was insufficient to justify twofold lifting and, alternatively, there was inadequate evidence of any debt owed by B.I.S. to Margot susceptible to garnishee; applying Order 29 the court exercised its discretion to order the interim payment to the plaintiff and dismissed the appeal.