Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment (order 86)

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2024

LEAD WELL INVESTMENTS LTD v. QUALI-WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2264
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1914/2020

The defendant raised an arguable defence by offering to stakehold HK$460,000 based on available estimates and by undertaking to pay any shortfall; the purchaser did not seek fortification or propose a counter‑offer; the MBIS works relate to common parts only and the stakeholding plus undertaking is at least arguably sufficient to provide adequate provision to discharge the MBIS Notice — therefore summary judgment was not appropriate and the Master's dismissal of the summary judgment application was upheld.
11 Sept 2017

RECALL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PANTEN LTD

Citation

RECALL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. PANTEN LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV43/2017

The summary judgment was set aside because there was a genuine triable issue whether the right to use the subject entrance formed part of the subject matter of the sale; where such a disputed question exists and the writ advanced only personal claims (not necessarily an encumbrance on title), summary determination on specific performance was inappropriate and the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
30 Nov 2006

PANG MOON KWAN AND ANOTHER v. CONCORD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

PANG MOON KWAN AND ANOTHER v. CONCORD PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2006

The sales agreements, viewed with the Agreement with the Government, only required the vendor to assign an equitable interest; evidence established completion of the buildings before the contractual date and the plaintiffs failed to raise a bona fide arguable defence or give particulars; accordingly summary judgment for the defendant was appropriate and the appeal is allowed.
15 Oct 2004

TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT

Citation

TSOI CHIK SANG, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER v. CHENG HUNG KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4341/2003

The Defendant’s account was inherently unbelievable given the clear and contemporaneous wording of the signed agreement and supporting documents; he failed to raise a believable triable defence under Order 86, therefore the Master’s summary judgment for specific performance was correctly affirmed.
9 Dec 1999

BOFAI DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. SUMMIT LEADER LTD.

Citation

BOFAI DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. SUMMIT LEADER LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV134/1999

The Court of Appeal held the judge below was wrong to treat the vendor as plainly without defence; the vendor had an arguable defence that its answer (referring to the Deed of Mutual Covenant, Architect's Certificate and assignment memorials) satisfactorily addressed Requisition No.24, so summary judgment under Order 86 was inappropriate and the vendor must be allowed unconditional leave to defend.
25 Feb 1999

ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

ROE INVESTMENT LTD. v. PRINCE GOOD LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV250/1998

Roe was not entitled to interplead because it retained a substantial financial interest in the subject-matter (the 80% shareholding and shareholders' loan) and was not in possession or in a position to transfer the subject-matter as required by Order 17; consequently the interpleader was improper, Yam J's reliance on O.17 was wrong, the permanent stay was set aside, and the issues of liability for delayed transfer and quantum of damages must be remitted to the trial judge for determination.
20 Feb 1990

LINK BRAIN LTD. v. FUJIAN FINANCE CO. LTD.

Citation

LINK BRAIN LTD. v. FUJIAN FINANCE CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV104/1989

The preliminary agreement was a binding open contract; the vendor wrongfully repudiated it by insisting on an unlawful root of title and withdrawing title deeds and refunding deposit; the purchaser validly affirmed the contract and remained ready and willing to perform but was prevented from doing so by the vendor's conduct; no triable issue existed and specific performance should be ordered.
29 Mar 1989

CHIAP HUA FLASHLIGHTS LTD v. MARKFAITH INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

CHIAP HUA FLASHLIGHTS LTD v. MARKFAITH INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV112/1988

The Court refused leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council because, although a registration point might raise an issue of general importance, the Purchaser's prospects of success were so remote that the Privy Council should not be troubled; an undertaking by the Vendor not to execute for 21 days was accepted and the application for leave was refused, with the Court expressing doubt whether it would have jurisdiction to grant a stay under Rule 5.