Hung on Ni v. Lau Chung Hoi
Read the full judgment text of HCA 826/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 5 May 2020.
1. This is the Plaintiff’s claim for the balance of purchase price in respect of the sale of her majority shareholding in a company called Top Famous Construction Engineering Ltd to the Defendant.
|
HCA 826/2017 [2020] HKCFI 744 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 826 OF 2017 ________________________
(original action) AND BETWEEN
(by counterclaim) _______________________
_________________ J U D G M E N T _________________ 1.This is the Plaintiff’s claim for the balance of purchase price in respect of the sale of her majority shareholding in a company called Top Famous Construction Engineering Ltd to the Defendant. 2.Those shares had long been transferred to the Defendant but there remains a balance of purchase price in the sum of HK$15 million which has not been paid by the Defendant. 3.The Defendant has not appeared today to defend this action or to prosecute his counterclaim. 4.I am satisfied by the Plaintiff’s evidence that her case has been proved. Indeed, the Plaintiff’s case is based upon 2 written documents, referred to respectively as the September Agreement and October Deed in the Statement of Claim, both of which were signed by the Defendant. 5.I do not see any inherent fragility in the Plaintiff’s case which may disentitle her to any of the relief sought. I should mention that even if the October Deed was not sealed as alleged in the Amended Defence, it would take effect as a contract between the parties thereto. 6.For these reasons, I am satisfied that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the Defendant in the sum of HK$26,100,000, inclusive of agreed interest and handling charges. Interest should run on the judgment sum at judgment rate(s) from today until payment. 7.I dismiss the counterclaim. 8.The costs of this action and the counterclaim be to the Plaintiff. 9.The 3rd Defendant is also entitled to the costs of the counterclaim against the Defendant and I so order. Both sets of costs are to be taxed, if not agreed.
The Plaintiff (original action) and the 1st Defendant (by counterclaim) appeared in person The Defendant (original action) and the Plaintiff (by counterclaim) was not represented and did not appear The 2nd Defendant (by counterclaim) was not represented and did not appear The 3rd Defendant (by counterclaim) appeared in person |