26 Nov 2018
The court refused to set aside the statutory demand and exercised its discretion to adjourn the petition only on condition that the debtor pay HK$1.8 million into court by the specified deadline because the debtor had not demonstrated that the grounds of appeal were likely to succeed and no affidavits or stay had been filed.
11 Jul 2003
Summary judgment was set aside because the material before the judge (including solicitors' correspondence not originally before him) showed the defence was more than frivolous and raised issues warranting trial; accordingly leave to defend was granted subject to the claimed sum being retained in court, and joinder of Garwin Enterprises Ltd and Koichiro Takahashi was permitted as the preferable procedural route; costs were ordered to be in the cause.
27 Jul 2001
The court found the plaintiffs' evidence credible and the defendants' defences and counterclaim largely shadowy and piecemeal; accordingly the court granted conditional leave to defend and ordered the defendants to pay the claimed amount of $190,940 into court within 42 days, failing which judgment for that amount would be entered for the plaintiffs (interest to be applied for) with enforcement delayed until after trial of the counterclaim.
18 Apr 2001
The defendant’s defence and affirmation were sketchy and lacked particulars and evidence of financial incapacity or detailed allegations of misrepresentation; therefore conditional leave to defend requiring payment into court was appropriate. The court would not increase the amount ordered on appeal where the plaintiff did not cross‑appeal; the Master’s condition remained in force. The defendant’s appeal was dismissed but leave to appeal out of time and an extension to 25 May 2001 to comply were granted.
10 Apr 2001
The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff's affidavit, being based on company records and stating sources and grounds, established a prima facie case under Order 14, and the 2nd defendant's unparticularised denials and unexplained connections to the debtor did not amount to a proper answer; accordingly the Master's conditional grant of leave to defend, requiring payment into court, was a proper exercise of discretion.
3 May 2000
The Court held the written letter of 9 April 1999 evidenced the plaintiff as the principal lender; the defendant accepted the benefit of the advance and thus ratified any unauthorised signature; the contractual rate of 5% per month equals 60% p.a. and does not exceed the statutory limit and the loan was in any event within the statutory exemption for companies with paid up capital over HK$1,000,000; accordingly the defendant had no defence to the principal sum and judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate, but the issue of the proper rate of interest remains triable and the defendant is enti…
16 Mar 2000
The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and refused an interim stay because the defendant failed to show that without a stay it would be financially ruined or otherwise justify departing from the principle that the successful party should not be deprived of the fruits of judgment; the plaintiff was permitted to withdraw its appeal and costs were allocated as ordered.
2 Sept 1999
The judge erred in granting unconditional leave to defend because the defendant's sole explanation (that the cheque was 'earnest money') did not justify displacing the master's conditional order; the appropriate order is conditional leave to defend on payment of the $15,000,000 into court, failing which the plaintiff may enter judgment with interest and costs.
23 Jul 1968
Because the affidavits raised triable issues—notably whether the plaintiffs knew of and assented to the sub‑letting and whether waiver existed—summary judgment against the alleged sub‑tenant was inappropriate; leave to defend must be granted but may be conditional where the defence appears suspicious, including by requiring payment into court to protect the landlords pending trial.
12 Sept 1967
Appeal allowed: the court found a genuine triable issue (non est factum and allegation that blanks were filled in without authority) could not be resolved on affidavits alone and that requiring payment of $25,000 into court risked injustice by preventing the defendant from raising that defence; therefore the defendant was entitled to unconditional leave to defend.