Ziff-davis Publishing Co v. Headway Print and Production Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 346/1984 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is an appeal from a decision of Master Wilson given on 20th March 1984 by which the defendant to this action was given unconditional leave to defend. When the appeal was called on before me, the defendant, which is a limited company, did not appear and I proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of any representative of the defendant. I should say in passing that between the hearing before the Master and this appeal, the defendant has discarded solicitors previously acting in its behal
|
HCA000346/1984
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN
Coram: Hon. Mantell J. (In Chambers) Date of Hearing: 3rd May, 1984. Date of Delivery of Judgment: 3rd May, 1984. __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. This is an appeal from a decision of Master Wilson given on 20th March 1984 by which the defendant to this action was given unconditional leave to defend. When the appeal was called on before me, the defendant, which is a limited company, did not appear and I proceeded to hear the appeal in the absence of any representative of the defendant. I should say in passing that between the hearing before the Master and this appeal, the defendant has discarded solicitors previously acting in its behalf. 2. The first matter I have had to consider is an application for leave to appeal out of time. Mr. Murtagh very properly brought to my attention the fact that the notice is dated one day outside the prescribed period. The application for an extension of time appears in the notice of appeal itself and I grant it. 3. So far as the appeal itself is concerned, it is necessary to say just a little about the background. The claim as appearing from the Statement of Claim is for the cost of advertising placed with an airline by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. It amounts to US$16,605.75. There is no dispute disclosed in the affidavits filed on behalf of the defendant as to those charges having been incurred. But it is said that, subsequent to their having been incurred and having been demanded, a fresh bargain was struck with the plaintiff by which the plaintiff was to have its money in the form of two postdated cheques in return for an undertaking not to disclose to certain third parties the financial straits in which the defendant then found itself because such information could be damaging to the defendant's business interests. It is then said that, in breach of that promise, the plaintiff did disclose to the third parties the financial position of the defendant, and consequently not only was the defendant entitled to countermand payment of the cheques but it has also suffered damage with the result that there is a very substantial counterclaim which the defendant claims it is entitled to set off in extinction of the plaintiff's claim, and to recover the balance. 4. Well, I suppose that that defence is just about arguable, but it is, I think, to adopt the description which has been used in some of the cases a shadowy defence and, consequently, although I am prepared to allow the defendant to continue to defend the action, it will only be upon terms that it brings into court the full amount of the claim within 14 days. It follows that this appeal succeeds in part and the plaintiff shall have the costs of today and before the Master. 5. For the avoidance of doubt and in view of the fact that the defendant is not represented here today, I must make it plain that when I speak of the whole sum claimed being brought into court, I refer to the amount claimed in the unamended Statement of Claim, that is, US$16,605.75 or its equivalent in Hong Kong currency at the date of the sum being brought into court.
Representation: Murtagh of Johnson, Stokes & Master for plaintiff. Defendant - absent. |