Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment (order 14a)

Legal area

Court

23 Sept 2016

GOAL UPWARD INVESTMENT LTD v. OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOAL UPWARD INVESTMENT LTD v. OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1355/2016

The court held that the termination notice dated 15 May 2016 failed to comply with clause 8.2 (which required not less than seven days' notice) because, applying the relevant principles on computation of time and the requirement of strict compliance for a termination notice, the notice was too short and therefore ineffective to terminate the Agreement.
4 Oct 2006

JIM PAK KIN t/a JIM\'S TAI KWONG PLASTIC FACTORY v. LACONIC FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

JIM PAK KIN t/a JIM\'S TAI KWONG PLASTIC FACTORY v. LACONIC FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4755/2005

The court exercised its discretion on costs and held the Defendant's O.14A application was reasonable to bring given the state of the law and pleaded facts, but because material factual and legal disputes remained making summary disposal inappropriate, the fair and just order was to vary the nisi costs order so that costs of the Application are in the cause (with certificate for counsel and to be taxed if not agreed).
20 Feb 2002

JOY & PEACE.COM INC. v. TOPSHOW CONSULTANTS LTD.

Citation

JOY & PEACE.COM INC. v. TOPSHOW CONSULTANTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3773/2001

No term should be implied requiring completion within a few weeks; the draft prospectus timetable was not an express contractual date, time could not be made of the essence where no date was fixed, there was no undue delay or prior notice requiring performance and therefore no breach entitling rescission; accordingly plaintiff's claim was dismissed and judgment entered for defendant under Order 14A.
14 Dec 2001

MURRAY ALAN GARDNER v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD.

Citation

MURRAY ALAN GARDNER v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3390/2001

Summary judgment was refused because the defendant's construction was an arguable one that required consideration of the factual matrix and disputed facts; accordingly unconditional leave to defend was granted and the strike out application dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

GOAL UPWARD INVESTMENT LTD v. OSMAN MOHAMMED ARAB AND ANOTHER

JIM PAK KIN t/a JIM\'S TAI KWONG PLASTIC FACTORY v. LACONIC FREIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD

JOY & PEACE.COM INC. v. TOPSHOW CONSULTANTS LTD.

MURRAY ALAN GARDNER v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD.