27 May 2021
Set-off (both legal and equitable) constituted an arguable defence to the plaintiff's claim for HK$1,000,000 and the guarantor could rely on that defence; consequently summary judgment was inappropriate and the Order 14 application is dismissed; costs awarded to defendants on an indemnity basis.
16 Oct 2017
Summary judgment entered for plaintiff because defendant failed to demonstrate any triable issue: defendant admitted receipt and partial payments, failed to particularize or evidence entitlement to price under Contracts A–N (lacked title so at best damages), and failed to establish a legal or equitable set-off; the counterclaim arose from separate transactions and did not justify a stay of execution.
13 Jan 2017
The Tribunal held the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear it; relief against forfeiture in related proceedings meant the tenancy was not finally determined, the respondent's set-off arguments were either addressed or inadequately particularised and did not justify adjournment or transfer, and therefore leave to appeal out of time was refused and the stay of execution was denied; costs of the interlocutory application were awarded to the applicant in the sum of $8,900.
14 May 2002
The statutory demand was set aside because mutuality existed so that legal set-off was arguable, equitable set-off applied given the close connection between the subcontract claims and the statutory employment debt, and the Applicant demonstrated a counterclaim/cross-demand exceeding the amount of the demand, warranting the exercise of the court's discretion to set aside the demand.