Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 14 leave to defend

Legal area

Court

8 May 2009

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN

Citation

ERIC CHAN & CO (a firm) v. WONG KWOK WANG WARREN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1155/2008

The judge accepted that the Defendant presented evidence capable of belief that Mr Eric Chan assured him no fees would be charged for the Taxation Case and that the surrounding circumstances made it sensible for the Defendant to rely on that assurance; accordingly the Defendant established a meritorious defence and was granted unconditional leave to defend the Plaintiff's claim. The judge also accepted at this stage that an assignee may bill under the LPO authorities cited and made costs directions for the O.14 summons.
15 Feb 2007

POLAR FURS LTD AND ANOTHER v. INTERNATIONAL FUR CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

POLAR FURS LTD AND ANOTHER v. INTERNATIONAL FUR CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2042/2005

Appeal dismissed because the 2nd Defendant failed to discharge the burden under O.14 of demonstrating a real and bona fide triable issue: the Plaintiffs had established a prima facie case by verified pleadings and contemporaneous correspondence showing acknowledgment of substantial indebtedness; the defendant's post‑commencement recalculations and assertions of miscalculation or set‑offs were unsubstantiated, not contemporaneous, and insufficiently credible to warrant rescission of summary judgment.
1 Apr 2005

TANG HOI WO v. WELL LUCK (H.K.) LTD

Citation

TANG HOI WO v. WELL LUCK (H.K.) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1568/2004

The court granted defendants leave to defend both actions but only on strict payment conditions into court because the defendants' pleaded case was shadowy yet raised issues warranting a defence; the court refused all injunctions because of inexcusable delay, inadequate evidence of covenant breach, insufficient fortification of the plaintiff's undertaking and because any injunction would conflict with the rationale for conditional leave to defend.
26 Jan 2000

HOUSTON MACHINERY CO. LTD. v. LUK CHUNG SHING

Citation

HOUSTON MACHINERY CO. LTD. v. LUK CHUNG SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20995/1998

The court accepted that notice of dishonour was dispensed with because the drawee's account was closed, but more importantly held that the defendant's affidavits, supported by Bermian's accountant and documentary evidence, raised believable factual issues as to discharge of liability; therefore there is a triable issue and summary judgment was inappropriate. The Master's order was set aside and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.
12 Dec 1997

FITTO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD v. FANTASY FILM CITY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FITTO ENTERTAINMENT CO LTD v. FANTASY FILM CITY CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4810/1997

The Master correctly entered final summary judgment because the pleaded defences disclosed no triable issue: the Share Agreement was valid and performed; the loan agreements expressly required repayment and the alleged collateral agreement was inherently inconsistent and not credible; payment to Hapus was evidenced and did not require exhaustive accounting by Emperor; and the economic duress defence to the Licence Agreement was inadequately particularised, contradicted by conduct and therefore hopeless.
3 Jun 1992

CHINAKONG MANUFACTORY LTD. v. UNIDEN HONG KONG LTD.

Citation

CHINAKONG MANUFACTORY LTD. v. UNIDEN HONG KONG LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8146/1991

Defendant failed to discharge the positive threshold onus under Order 14 to show on the balance of probabilities that there was a triable issue because no affidavit or other evidence verified the amended defence and counterclaim; absent such evidence the Master's conditional leave to defend was set aside and judgment entered for the plaintiff for the claimed instalment and damages to be assessed.
22 Jul 1987

DAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v.NATHALAL KALIDAS MODI AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAYS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v.NATHALAL KALIDAS MODI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1041/1987

Where a defendant's uncontradicted assertion, supported by legal advice, establishes that she cannot lawfully or practically comply with any monetary condition imposed as a term of conditional leave under Order 14, the court must grant unconditional leave to defend; imposing an impossible payment condition would be a wrongful exercise of discretion (following Yorke v Edwards).
23 Jun 1973

CORDIAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG -AMERICA AIR TRANSPORT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CORDIAL MANUFACTURING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG -AMERICA AIR TRANSPORT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2629/1972

The Assistant Registrar was correct to grant unconditional leave to defend because the material before him disclosed issues of importance and a triable issue as to agency existed; the prior affidavit contained requisite depositions and a fresh amended affidavit exhibiting a different draft defence was irrelevant to the correctness of the Registrar's exercise of discretion.