Lei Shing Hong Securities Ltd. v. Lui Siu Ping
Read the full judgment text of HCA 20756/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 3 May 2000.
1. This is the restored hearing of an appeal from a master order whereby a summary judgment was granted by the master against the defendant. On the last occasion where the matter came before me on 22 December 1999 after hearing the evidence of Lui Siu Ping, given orally, to supplement the affidavit material presented to the court by the parties, I came to the clear view that the appeal should be allowed.
|
HCA020756/1998 HCA20756/1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.20756 OF 1998 ----------------------
----------------------- Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 3 May 2000 Date of Judgment: 3 May 2000 --------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------- 1. This is the restored hearing of an appeal from a master order whereby a summary judgment was granted by the master against the defendant. On the last occasion where the matter came before me on 22 December 1999 after hearing the evidence of Lui Siu Ping, given orally, to supplement the affidavit material presented to the court by the parties, I came to the clear view that the appeal should be allowed. 2. The reason that I came to the clear view is that the evidence of the defendant was clearly to the effect that the contract being sued upon was not in fact signed by her. The evidence was referred to at pages 20-21 of the bundle, as well as page 25 of the bundle. The signatures there, according to her oral evidence, were very different from the usual signature on page 34. On that basis, therefore, I came to the clear view that the appeal ought to be allowed. 3. Mr Kenneth Chan, counsel for the plaintiff at that hearing suggested and persuaded me that the practical course the court should take was to adjourn the matter with costs reserved and I acceded to the request, thinking that the parties might wish to come to some overall arrangements in relation to the action. It transpired however after that hearing in December 1999 that the plaintiff took advantage of the order of the master and then proceeded to seal the order and threatened to levy execution thereon. It seems to me that this is wholly wrong. The proper course, therefore, to take now is for the appeal to be formally allowed and for the judgment that had been entered to be set aside. I therefore make the order that the appeal of the defendant from the Order of the Master be allowed, and that the judgment and any execution thereon, as referred to in the recent affidavit of Wong Shun Foon, be set aside and I make such an order. I will now hear the parties as to costs.
Representation: Mr Kenneth C.L. Chan, instructed by Messrs Au Kong & Tang, for the Plaintiff Mr Simon Lam, instructed by Messrs Yip & Partners, for the Defendant |