Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Judgment on admission

Legal area

Court

31 May 2021

CHINA FAIR LAND (QINGDAO) LTD v. LO SUM SUM

Citation

[2021] HKDC 646
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1383/2014

The summons was dismissed because Order 45 rule 8 does not permit ordering the disobedient party itself to carry out remedial works and the alternative plea for an interlocutory mandatory injunction was misconceived given that judgment on liability had already been entered; the plaintiff could not properly add obligations (eg satisfaction of plaintiff's expert) beyond the scope of the existing order.
30 Mar 2012

WINGAMES INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. MASCOT LAND LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WINGAMES INVESTMENTS LTD AND OTHERS v. MASCOT LAND LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV20/2012

Security for costs was ordered in the reduced sum of HK$280,000 because the court found the plaintiffs' original estimate required further reduction to reflect substantial overlap between the appeal and the leave application, excessive claimed hourly rates for two fee earners warranted downward adjustment, and general risk of some items being taxed down; accordingly HK$280,000 was a proportionate security amount with seven days to pay and with dismissal of the appeal if security not provided.
23 Oct 2006

STANDARD CHATERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. MA LIT KIN, CARY

Citation

STANDARD CHATERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. MA LIT KIN, CARY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA62/2006

The Defence was found unbelievable and unsupported by particulars in light of signed documents, cheque withdrawals from the Defendant's personal account and commercial reality; therefore no triable issue existed and summary judgment was appropriate. The Defendant's oral admission was clear and proved, supporting judgment on admission. Consequently judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for the claimed amount with interest and costs.
13 Dec 2005

WONG KAM WING v. CHENG PUI LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG KAM WING v. CHENG PUI LUN AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3878/2002

Because earlier orders from the Court of Appeal and His Honour Judge Muttrie required an account to be taken and stayed further proceedings until its completion, the three-day hearing was limited to taking of account; the Deputy Judge's use of the word 'trial' did not revive the trial; accordingly the plaintiff's claim is stayed and the action proceeds only for account taking.
29 Jun 2005

HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE

Citation

HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2003

The court refused the defendant's application to resile from admissions because the defendant acted in bad faith and for tactical reasons (to avoid DNA testing and to retain the grant), the admissions demonstrated inconsistency with the defendant's asserted position and did not disclose a triable issue with reasonable prospects of success, and allowing withdrawal would cause injustice to the plaintiffs; accordingly the earlier order for judgment on admission stands.
7 Mar 2002

YUE XIU ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS CO. LTD v. SHING YUK YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

YUE XIU ANIMAL BY-PRODUCTS CO. LTD v. SHING YUK YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10463/2000

The appeal was allowed because there were genuine factual disputes and D1 demonstrated a real or bona fide defence; the alleged admissions in the letters were not conclusive in context and could be explained as being written for record purposes, and consequently the summary judgment/judgment on admission should be set aside and unconditional leave to defend granted so the matters (including potential requirement for an account between partners) can be fully investigated at trial.
29 Jan 2002

Booman Automobile & Metal Ltd. and Others v. Jaw Siu-wah

Citation

Booman Automobile & Metal Ltd. and Others v. Jaw Siu-wah
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ348/2001

The court refused to enter judgment under Order 27 because the defendant's payments constituted partial admissions that have been accepted and therefore there is nothing to execute judgment upon for those amounts, while the remaining balance is genuinely disputed and must be tried in the ordinary way; accordingly the interlocutory application was dismissed and interlocutory relief (interest) was refused pending final determination.
20 Jan 2000

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. POINTSTYLE INVESTMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. POINTSTYLE INVESTMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13008/1996

Para.34 did not amount to a clear and unambiguous admission because the Amended Defence, read as a whole, disclosed a primary defence inconsistent with such an admission; therefore the Master's order entering judgment on admission against D2 and D3 was set aside and the plaintiff's application dismissed to that extent.
24 Mar 1997

LOUIS DREYFUS TRADING LTD t/a LOUIS DREYFUS SUGAR v. BONARICH INTERNATIONAL (GROUP) LTD

Citation

LOUIS DREYFUS TRADING LTD t/a LOUIS DREYFUS SUGAR v. BONARICH INTERNATIONAL (GROUP) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL201/1996

No unequivocal admissions as to liability and quantum were established from the schedule or the December 1995 Memorandum; paragraph 5 of the Ho affirmation did not constitute a 'first statement on the substance of the dispute' for purposes of Article 8(1); therefore mandatory stay under the Model Law was granted; alternatively, on the court's inherent jurisdiction a discretionary stay would also be appropriate given the arbitration clauses, pending arbitrations and considerations of convenience, expense and avoiding inconsistent findings; summary judgment and judgment on admission were refuse…
3 May 1996

AQUALITY (POOLS) LTD v. LI CHI YUNG SIMON

Citation

AQUALITY (POOLS) LTD v. LI CHI YUNG SIMON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8041/1995

The 18 September 1995 letter was admissible because it related to whether the parties had concluded a settlement; however, the Defendant had pleaded misrepresentation and a counterclaim raising triable issues about defects, delay and loss, so it was not appropriate to grant judgment on admission under O.27 r.3 and the application was refused.