Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment/leave to defend

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2024

KING MOUNTAIN INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TANG YUK LING DOBE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 606
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA257/2023

The appeal is dismissed and the 2nd Defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend because the 2nd Defendant has demonstrated an arguable real defence: it is reasonably arguable there was no total failure of consideration given the express terms apportioning development risk to the Plaintiffs and the absence of an express obligation on the 2nd Defendant to procure villagers' performance, and there are triable factual issues (construction of the Agreements, knowledge and alleged misrepresentation). The defence of illegality was not established as a clear bar on restitution on the papers an…
23 Dec 2014

TAI FAT DEVELOPMENT (HOLDING) CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLD KING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING

Citation

TAI FAT DEVELOPMENT (HOLDING) CO LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF GOLD KING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV22/2014

The DMC, read with the First Schedule, defines common areas to include loading and unloading areas and expressly lists the 13 disputed spaces under that heading; the definition of Parking Spaces in the DMC limits 'parking spaces' to those actually assigned for separate ownership, and the absence of management shares for the 13 spaces further indicates they were intended as common areas; consequently the 13 spaces form part of the Building's common areas and the Judge's construction was correct.
16 Dec 2005

YESLAND LTD AND OTHERS v. CHINA FURNITURE CITY LTD

Citation

YESLAND LTD AND OTHERS v. CHINA FURNITURE CITY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2091/2004

The appeal was allowed and unconditional summary judgment set aside insofar as leave to defend was required because the defendant raised at least some triable issues about rectification works; however the defendant's conduct (acceptance of works, payment of rent and late complaints) justified the court exercising its discretion to grant leave to defend only on strict conditions requiring payment into court (HK$1,400,000 within 14 days and HK$200,000 per month thereafter) and an order nisi that costs of the appeal be in the cause.
2 Aug 2002

WORLDCOM, INC AND ANOTHER v. CLINTON ADKINS ROWE

Citation

WORLDCOM, INC AND ANOTHER v. CLINTON ADKINS ROWE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV161/2002

There were triable issues so leave to defend should be granted but the trial judge erred by imposing HK$2.5M without hearing the defendant's financial representations; the appropriate conditional payment was reduced to HK$400,000 payable within 28 days; no stay of execution was granted because the counterclaim was unlikely to succeed; costs to follow the stipulated nisi order.
27 Mar 2002

JCG FINANCE CO. LTD. v. GROUP LIFE INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

JCG FINANCE CO. LTD. v. GROUP LIFE INVESTMENT LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2417/2001

The court found the 2nd Defendant had demonstrated an arguable defence because contemporaneous documents supported that the loan in the Deed was the same loan subject to prior arbitration and settlement with Beijing Jinlong and because the Assignment could properly be construed as creating a secondary guarantor liability; consequently a triable issue existed requiring trial. Accordingly leave to defend was granted and the specific condition requiring payment into court of HKD 8,000,000 was removed while other protective conditions remained.
27 Nov 1997

Combined Rich Co. Ltd. v. Sim Kok Keng and Others

Citation

Combined Rich Co. Ltd. v. Sim Kok Keng and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV159/1997

The defendants failed to demonstrate any real or triable defence to the plaintiff's claim based on the written agreement; their assertion that the undertakings were non‑binding comfort letters did not, even if accepted for present purposes, constitute a defence sufficient to resist summary judgment; the Court of Appeal therefore affirmed the judge and master and dismissed the appeal, leaving judgment for the plaintiff for USD2,050,000 with interest and costs.
30 Oct 1997

WOON KAY CHANG v. TAI HING (ENGINEERS & BUILDERS) LTD

Citation

WOON KAY CHANG v. TAI HING (ENGINEERS & BUILDERS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4885/1997

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's summary judgment because, on the evidence and surrounding circumstances, there was a bona fide disputed claim and a plausible settlement which raised triable issues; additionally, the equitable argument against the Plaintiff resiling was plainly arguable and there were other arguable defenses (including public policy and insufficiency of the Plaintiff's work) warranting unconditional leave to defend.
21 Feb 1997

POLISPHERE LIMITED (In Liquidation) v. FOO WAN KONG

Citation

POLISPHERE LIMITED (In Liquidation) v. FOO WAN KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5234/1996

The appellant's case was not believable in light of contemporaneous and documentary evidence (signed accounts, confirmations and letter of representation) showing indebtedness of $3,500,000, so there were no credible grounds to set aside the summary judgment; the appeal is dismissed.
27 May 1994

KAIFULL INVESTMENT LTD. v. SONNIX LTD.

Citation

KAIFULL INVESTMENT LTD. v. SONNIX LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV207/1993

The Court allowed the appeal and granted leave to defend because the appellants demonstrated an arguable case that the surveyor may have applied a potentially 'wholly erroneous principle' in excluding the service lane and in his approach to site area verification, such that summary judgment under Order 14 was inappropriate; the matter requires fuller investigation at trial rather than determination on O.14 grounds.
26 Mar 1985

SANDY INVESTMENT LIMITED v. THIAM JOO (HK) LIMITED

Citation

SANDY INVESTMENT LIMITED v. THIAM JOO (HK) LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5338/1984

Paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Settlement Agreement unambiguously create concurrent and strict obligations: the 2nd defendant "shall pay" US$300,000 and the 1st defendant "shall pay" the instalments on fixed dates; the words "shall cause" impose an obligation on the 2nd and 3rd defendants to ensure payment by the 1st defendant. No condition precedent or secondary-only liability for the 1st defendant is to be implied; consequently the Masters' grants of unconditional leave to defend were wrong and are set aside.