The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd. v. Shing Fai Wood Engineering Ltd.
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2161/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 11 August 1999.
1. The position in this case is, in my judgment, indistinguishable from the position in HCA 2155 of 1999 in which, on 10 August 1999, I gave the defendant unconditional leave to defend. Mr. Daniel Wan for the plaintiff has presented the court with a formidable argument, which he says, dictates the conclusion that the one defence I find it necessary to consider, what I may call the "language" defence, is no defence at all. He submits that, for the purposes of section 9 of the Law Reform and Amend
Cites 1 case
|
HCA002161/1999 HCA 2161/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 2161 OF 1999
---------------------- Coram : Godfrey, J.A. in Chambers (sitting as an additional Judge of the Court of First Instance) Date of Hearing : 11 August 1999 Date of Judgment : 11 August 1999 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Godfrey, J.A. : 1. The position in this case is, in my judgment, indistinguishable from the position in HCA 2155 of 1999 in which, on 10 August 1999, I gave the defendant unconditional leave to defend. Mr. Daniel Wan for the plaintiff has presented the court with a formidable argument, which he says, dictates the conclusion that the one defence I find it necessary to consider, what I may call the "language" defence, is no defence at all. He submits that, for the purposes of section 9 of the Law Reform and Amendment (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 23, the notice required by the section may be given (1) in any language calculated to bring its purpose home to the mind of the addressee; or (2) in the English language; or (3) in the Chinese language; in the latter two cases, irrespective of whether the notice is calculated to bring its purpose home to the mind of the addressee. 2. I am unable to accept this argument for the purposes of this application for summary judgment, powerful though I see it is. 3. As it seems to me, it is arguable that only a notice in a language calculated to bring it home to the mind of the addressee can be a good notice for the purposes of section 9, so that a notice in English to an addressee incapable of understanding that language would not be a good notice. The point is a short one, but not one suitable for consideration on an application for summary judgment. 4. I say nothing about the facts, as to which there may well be a dispute to be resolved at the trial, and no more about the merits of the "language" defence. I shall give the defendant unconditional leave to defend the action. Costs will be costs in the cause.
Representation: Mr. Daniel Wan instructed by M/s. Johnson Stokes & Master for Plaintiff Mr. Timothy Ling instructed by M/s. Kwan & Kwan for Defendant |
Cases cited in this judgment