First Laser Ltd v. Fujian Enterprises (Holdings) Co Ltd and Another
Read the full judgment text of CACV 126/2008 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 25 June 2010.
1. We consider, having examined the Judgment, that the Judge had not dealt with the issue of estoppel by convention. We also consider, contrary to Mr Chan Chi Hung SC’s argument, that the Judge had not “rejected all the Defendants’ defences” to the estoppel by convention argument. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Ground (7) in its draft Amended Respondent’s Notice, as presently drafted, is predicated on a wrong premise.
Cites 1 case
|
CACV 126/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 126 OF 2008 (ON APPEAL FROM HCA NO. 4414 OF 2001) ____________ BETWEEN
____________ Before: Hon Cheung, Yeung and Yuen JJA in Court Dates of Hearing: 24-25 June 2010 Date of Ruling: 25 June 2010 _______________ R U L I N G _______________ Hon Yuen JA (giving the ruling of the court): 1.We consider, having examined the Judgment, that the Judge had not dealt with the issue of estoppel by convention. We also consider, contrary to Mr Chan Chi Hung SC’s argument, that the Judge had not“rejected all the Defendants’ defences” to the estoppel by convention argument. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Ground (7) in its draft Amended Respondent’s Notice, as presently drafted, is predicated on a wrong premise. 2.However, Mr Chan has also said that he would like to raise the estoppel by convention argument in any event. 3.We are mindful of the lateness at which this argument has been raised before us. However, we have to consider all circumstances of the case and we see no prejudice to the Defendants which cannot be compensated by costs. 4.We would therefore grant leave to the Plaintiff to proceed with Ground (7) of the draft Amended Respondent’s Notice as follows:-
After hearing submissions on costs, this court ordered that: 5.Costs of and occasioned by the Plaintiff’s application for leave to amend Ground (7) of the Amended Respondent’s Notice to be paid forthwith to the Defendants. A gross sum assessment skeleton bill of costs is to be provided.
Mr Benjamin Yu, SC, Mr Paul Shieh, SC and Mr Law Man Chung, instructed by Messrs Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker, for the 1st and 2nd Defendants (Appellants) Mr Chan Chi Hung, SC and Mr Jeremy S.K. Chan, instructed by Messrs Mayer Brown JSM, for the Plaintiff (Respondent) |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 126/2008