Polyline Development Limited (寶富來發展有限公司) Commenced a Hopeless Claim Which is Bound to Fail - Says Recorder Manzoni SC in [2021] HKCFI 483

Polyline Development Limited (寶富來發展有限公司) Commenced a Hopeless Claim Which is Bound to Fail - Says Recorder Manzoni SC in [2021] HKCFI 483

"Based upon the evidence and in particular the contracts, all of which contain an acknowledgment and receipt of consideration clause, that claim is bound to fail, and thus should also be struck out."

Mr Barrie Barlow SC, instructed by William K W Leung & Co Solicitors, for the Plaintiff, Polyline Development Limited (寶富來發展有限公司) 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

主控大律師伍家聰 Prosecuting Counsel Simon K C Ng (Barrister) 俾法官沈小民寸 - 『共謀者原則』唔係咁解你返去自己諗清楚【案件編號：DCCC908、918/19】

主控大律師伍家聰 Prosecuting Counsel Simon K C Ng (Barrister) 俾法官沈小民寸 https://hk.appledaily.com/local/20210219/JOB3V7RYRJDLLFQZQF3LWRMN4E/ 沈官更一度向主控大律師伍家聰稱：「『共謀者原則』唔係咁解你返去自己諗清楚。」【案件編號：DCCC908、918/19】10.1串謀暴動案六男女全部脫罪
Read more

Milton Lai Fabricated Evidence in Court - Said DDJ George Lam - DCCJ 1917/2018 - [2021] HKDC 378 - LAI KO CHOY v LAI KIN (黎健) & KWONG LAI SIM (鄺麗嬋)

Milton Lai Fabricated Evidence in Court - Said DDJ George Lam  DCCJ 1917/2018 [2021] HKDC 378 LAI KO CHOY v LAI KIN (黎健) & KWONG LAI SIM (鄺麗嬋) 90. I find that Milton Lai was fabricating his evidence in court. It seems to me that Milton Lai was trying to salvage the weakness in the plaintiff’s case where the plaintiff cared nothing about the mortgage. I reject Milton Lai’s evidence entirely in relation to the purchase of the Property or any discussion about the mortgage. I did not believe a financial consultant could have advised his father when acquiring a property without any of the above-mentioned essential information.
Read more

Chung & Kwan Solicitors Got the Law Completely Wrong

Hong Kong Law Firm Chung & Kwan Solicitors Got the Law Completely Wrong [2021] HKLdT 37 - LDBM 56/2020 -  https://legalref.judiciary.hk/ doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/ 2020/LDBM000056_2020.doc //On 11 May 2020 the respondent’s then solicitors, Messrs Chung & Kwan, gave a reply letter and refused to convene such a meeting on the ground, inter alia, that convening such meeting is not an exemption under the Regulation as the IO is not a statutory body.  The same contention was repeated in paragraph 8(d) of the respondent’s Notice of Opposition filed on 22 July 2020... ... the Secretary for Food and Health has clarified and confirmed that the requested meeting would be an exempted group gathering under Schedule 1 of the Regulation, and in particular paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 1 of the Regulation is applicable to the requested meeting as contended by the applicant. ... It is clear that paragraph 11(a) of Schedule 1 would be able to give an exemption for the respondent to c...
Read more