10 Jul 2003
Defendant demonstrated genuine triable issues on lack of consideration and duress and raised credible factual disputes about ownership and origin of funds; where such doubts exist the summary procedure is inappropriate and unconditional leave to defend must be granted.
26 Jul 2002
The application for a stay was dismissed because the 1st defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on appeal and did not show a considerable risk that enforcement would render an eventual successful appeal nugatory; the lack‑of‑consideration argument was mixed fact and law and could not be effectively pursued on appeal in the absence of trial findings, and s.30 presumption together with the plaintiffs' pleadings and evidence sufficed to establish consideration.
27 Apr 1995
The defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend because there is a good arguable defence under the Money Lenders Ordinance — the plaintiff likely carried on business as an unlicensed money lender and section 23 may bar recovery — and factual disputes and other arguable defences (novation of restitution claim, lack of consideration, rectification) require trial; summary judgment would be inappropriate.