Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary judgment under order 14

Legal area

Court

21 Jun 2023

HU SUN IRENE AND ANOTHER v. ZISHANG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1612
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1182/2021

The 19th Defendant's contemporaneous transactional evidence (payment proof, invoice, collection documents, bank activity and WhatsApp communications) made its pleaded defence of a bona fide arms-length purchase believable; there was no compelling indisputable evidence to defeat that defence on summary judgment, therefore the Master's summary judgment was set aside and conditional leave to defend was granted subject to the HK$1,600,000 remaining in court; costs orders were reserved accordingly.
20 May 2021

LEADERS COSMETICS CO, LTD (formerly known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE JOOSIKHOESA and also known as SANSUNG LIFE & SCIENCE CO, LTD) v. CHEUNG WAI PAN t/a JUFENG GLOBAL COMESTIC CO

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2626/2017

Defendants failed to demonstrate any triable issue or provide evidence to support the parallel import/authorisation defence; consequently summary judgment was appropriate and final injunctive and ancillary relief, including delivery up, disclosure, election as to damages or account of profits and assessed costs, were granted to the plaintiff.
3 Mar 2021

鄧婉萍訴鄧洪耀

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP36/2019

Because the defendant in his defence admitted that he had no dispute with the deceased's will and admitted the will had legal effect, and because he filed no affidavit in opposition and raised no credible defence, the court was entitled under Order 14 to enter summary judgment: declare the 26 November 1998 will valid and grant probate in solemn form to the plaintiff, revoke the prior grant so far as registered against the specified property, and award costs to the plaintiff.
2 Mar 2021

LO SIK CHUNG v. LEE HING LUNG

Citation

[2021] HKDC 226
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4110/2019

The appeal is dismissed because the defendant failed to comply with procedural requirements to file and serve an opposition affidavit in time, failed to establish any credible or arguable defence to the cheque claims, and sought to adduce new evidence on appeal which is impermissible; accordingly the summary judgment and associated relief are upheld.
28 Aug 2019

HUI TANG TAT（許騰達)［in the Will called HUI TANT TAT（許騰達）］，the Executor of the Estate of PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜）also known as PAO SHUN HING（鮑舜卿），Deceased 對 HUI TING BONG（許定邦）及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1270
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1623/2019

Plaintiff, as sole executor and registered legal owner, was entitled to possession because the defendant's occupation derived only from a bare licence granted by the first defendant which terminated on the owner’s death; the second defendant raised no credible, particularized or triable defence (including proprietary estoppel) and therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate; mesne profits are recoverable for the period of unlawful occupation and the pending HCMP proceedings do not defeat the application.
20 May 2019

CHEONG SHING WATER SUPPLIES ENGINEERING LTD v. FULL WIN BUILDING SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 559
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ985/2018

The 2nd Affirmation and the letter of 14 February 2019 were not admitted because the information they contained could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and did not add materially finalised evidence; the defendant failed to explain the delay or to justify a new round of evidence. The defendant produced no evidence to substantiate its counterclaim or set-off allegations and had admitted the MA in its pleadings; accordingly there was no bona fide triable defence to the claim under the MA and summary judgment was appropriate. The Master's grant of unconditional leave to defend was set…
30 Nov 2017

OPERATION SMILE, INC. v. BEAM INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION LTD

Citation

OPERATION SMILE, INC. v. BEAM INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1026/2015

The court held that the plaintiff was the proprietor of the OPERATION SMILE marks and had established goodwill in Hong Kong and Mainland China, the defendant was an alter ego/licensee whose licence was validly terminated and who continued to use the plaintiff's marks and names thereby committing trademark infringement and passing off; no real defence existed and summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff in the terms prayed with costs.
26 Aug 2016

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. PAK KWAN HO

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. PAK KWAN HO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1269/2015

The defendant failed to adducespecific, credible particulars or any manifest error to rebut the bank's conclusive certification of indebtedness; the guarantees made the defendant liable as principal obligor and waived any right to require prior proceedings against the principal borrowers; accordingly there was no arguable defence and summary judgment was properly granted and must be upheld.
25 Jun 2015

NICE PLAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KE JUN XIANG

Citation

NICE PLAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KE JUN XIANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV259/2014

Defendant failed to demonstrate circumstances relevant to the core dispute that warranted investigation at trial; the documents offered did not credibly evidence repayment by share transfer and the alleged nominee relationship was peripheral to the repayment issue, therefore summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
8 Oct 2014

TIGER VENTURE FUNDING LTD v. FAITHFUL GOOD LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TIGER VENTURE FUNDING LTD v. FAITHFUL GOOD LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA933/2014

Defendants failed to raise any triable issue that the plaintiff was bound by an implied agreement not to demand or sue; the plaintiff was not a party to the Side Letter and conduct relied upon did not demonstrate an agreement consistent only with the alleged implied contract; accordingly summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for the specified amount with contractual interest and costs on indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel.