Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-off defence

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2024

TSANG CHI WOON t/a ON-LINE WORKSHOP v. BOX DESIGN LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA22/2024

The adjudicator provided good and sufficient reasons for transfer — overlapping issues between the small claims and the District Court action, the respondent's set-off defence being essentially the same matter, and identical parties and witnesses — and therefore the transfer order to the District Court was justified and should be confirmed on review; the applicant's inability to afford counsel is irrelevant because he may act in person.
26 Aug 2022

INCU GLOBAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. D\' AGUILAR CAPITAL MANGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2633
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA853/2018

Master To’s order, interpreted sensibly in context, and the court’s discretionary power permitted the plaintiffs to file an affirmation exhibiting Skybound’s unsworn draft; an unsworn draft produced by an opposing party and exhibited in an affirmation is admissible as hearsay for interlocutory purposes under RHC Order 41 r.5(2), with defects affecting weight not admissibility; accordingly striking out was inappropriate and leave to file was granted.
27 Aug 2020

TACHING PETROLEUM CO LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCT 7
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTA1/2018

The Tribunal directed that no leave to appeal is required for the Amendment Decision under rule 44 but that leave is required for the Expert Evidence Decision as it is an interlocutory case management decision; Meyer failed to establish a reasonable prospect of success or public-interest grounds for leave; the applications for leave to appeal were dismissed and costs were to be borne by Meyer with certificates for two counsel.
27 Aug 2020

SHELL HONG KONG LTD v. MEYER ALUMINIUM LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCT 7
Court

Competition Tribunal
Case number

CTA2/2018

No leave to appeal was required for the Amendment Decision because it sought to add new issues/defences and so appeals lie as of right; leave is required for the Expert Evidence Decision because it is an interlocutory case management decision; Meyer did not show a reasonable prospect of success nor any other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave; applications for leave to appeal were dismissed and costs were ordered against Meyer to Taching and Shell with certificates for two counsel.
7 Sept 2015

RE ICG ASIA FINANCE LTD

Citation

RE ICG ASIA FINANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW209/2015

Because the petitioner relied on an existing judgment debt and statutory demand, no stay of that judgment had been obtained, the company's purported new defence (set-off) was late and inadequately evidenced so as not to show very strong prospects of success on appeal, and the continuing mareva injunction suggested inability to pay, the court was satisfied the company was insolvent and a winding-up order should be made.
24 Sept 2010

MAN FUNG TEXTILES AND DYEING LTD v. CHOW MING CHEUNG

Citation

MAN FUNG TEXTILES AND DYEING LTD v. CHOW MING CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2015/2008

The court found on the balance of the evidence that the Defendant agreed to acquire 10% interest in FH and MF for $2.8m and that the $1,320,000 (including monthly $30,000 deductions) were capital contributions rather than loans; therefore the Defendant had no valid equitable set-off against the Plaintiffs' demands and the Plaintiffs' loan claims succeed.
27 Aug 1999

AU HON MAN v. KINGSTON FINANCE LTD.

Citation

AU HON MAN v. KINGSTON FINANCE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA17120/1998

The appeal against the master's grant of unconditional leave to defend was allowed; there was no defence to the plaintiff's claim as to the moneys standing to his credit in his KFL account, so judgment was entered for the plaintiff against KFL, but because KFL/KSL may have an arguable set-off or counterclaim the court stayed execution pending trial of any counterclaim and ordered costs of the plaintiff's summary judgment application to be costs in the cause. The court refused to strike out the KFL/KSL action and upheld consolidation and granted leave to serve notice of appeal out of time.
30 Apr 1997

LUCKY CORPORATION LTD. v. SUNGRAFIC (B.W.) PRINTING CO. LTD.

Citation

LUCKY CORPORATION LTD. v. SUNGRAFIC (B.W.) PRINTING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8388/1996

The defence of quantified partial failure of consideration was unavailable because the consideration for the dishonoured cheque was not shown to be separable or different from the consideration for earlier payments; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment for $1,000,000 plus interest and the master's dismissal was set aside.