Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Order 86 summary judgment

  • 19 Apr 2017

    CHU YIN FAN v. INTER RIVERS LTD

    Citation
    CHU YIN FAN v. INTER RIVERS LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4314/2012

    The application for leave to appeal out of time was dismissed because, although the short delay was excusable, the proposed appeal lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the court correctly applied De Monsa to conclude there was no real risk that the missing original Assignment would give rise to a prior encumbrance on title, the defendant's answers to requisitions were adequate (so statutory declarations or further conveyancing evidence were unnecessary), the alleged implied best‑endeavours term was arguable but factual disputes (including whether the purchaser used best endeavours by appl…

  • 5 Mar 2001

    Yau Wai and Ho Wing Shan and Others v. Mark Honour Ltd.

    Citation
    Yau Wai and Ho Wing Shan and Others v. Mark Honour Ltd.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA9627/2000

    The sixth certificate dated 11 September 2000 was ineffective because it was retrospective and did not state reasons showing that the authorised person considered the extension reasonable within the contractual categories (notably inclement weather); accordingly the valid completion date remained 27 August 2000 and the plaintiffs were entitled to rescind. Nonetheless, because the defendant has a sketchy but arguable defence alleging concerted disruption by plaintiffs causing delay, the defendant is granted conditional leave to defend subject to payment into court of HKD 26,500,000.

  • 3 Aug 1999

    LAI FUNG KAM v. WONG TAI RAYMOND

    Citation
    LAI FUNG KAM v. WONG TAI RAYMOND
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA16508/1998

    Because material and arguable triable issues existed (including whether the completion/deadline was extended, whether the 100 sq.ft. was sale of land or a licence, and whether the answers were given within a reasonable time), summary judgment was inappropriate; unconditional leave to defend was granted and the Order 86 application dismissed with costs to the Defendant.