HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Civil Action2017

BAGUIO GREEN GROUP LTD v. 上海亘远环保股份有限公司 AND OTHERS

Related cases with same parties

  • CACV109/2021TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS
  • CACV111/2012A v. 接替黄偉綸在職業訓練局常務委員會當委員的教育局副秘書長 AND OTHERS
  • CACV178/2015TSANG FOO KEUNG AND ANOTHER v. AND OTHERS
  • CAMP20/2024李明實 AND OTHERS v. ACE LEAD PROFITS LTD AND ANOTHER
  • CAMP293/2022YIP LAI HEUNG v. 伍炳榮 AND OTHERS
  • CAMP63/2024CHEUNG SAU CHU ROSANNA v. 魯珉軒 AND OTHERS
  • CAMP70/2018MAN KAI TAK v. 梁妹 AND OTHERS
  • DCCJ3030/2023H.K.F.S. FUND LTD v. 羅芷澄 AND OTHERS
  • DCCJ324/2025庄跃进AND OTHERS v. 白平
  • DCEC1011/2000TAM YUEN HOI v. 陳牧成 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1141/2018TSE CHIU v. 郭健 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1252/2016YIP LAI HEUNG v. 伍炳榮 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1764/2018XIE JINFENG v. 勝哥火鍋食品專門店 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC1786/2019譚國武 v. 三星電子香港有限公司 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC2444/2019CHEN LIANGPING v. 方廷秋 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC516/2016CHENG KA PIU v. 黃明光 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC535/2017LAM HO LUN v. 吳耀文 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC713/2009TSANG CHIU TUNG v. 陳創成經營成記水喉渠務工程 AND ANOTHER
  • DCEC738/2010YIP CHI HO v. 黃啓德 AND OTHERS
  • DCEC926/2002YU YIN SUN v. 李良 AND OTHERS
[2020] HKCFI 1934-EN-2020-07-22

BAGUIO GREEN GROUP LTD v. 上海亘远环保股份有限公司 AND OTHERS

HTML content

HCA 1848/2017

[2020] HKCFI 1934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1848 OF 2017

________________________

BETWEEN

 BAGUIO GREEN GROUP LIMITED
(碧瑤綠色集团有限公司)
Plaintiff
 and 
 上海亘远环保股份有限公司1st Defendant
 LAW SIU TONG (罗少棠)2nd Defendant
 詹世军3rd Defendant

________________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 July 2020
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  This is the Plaintiff’s action for the return of a refundable deposit it had paid under a Letter of Intent dated 8 June 2016 (“L/I”). The primary obligator for the refund is the 1st Defendant, the contracting party who received the deposit under the L/I. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were the guarantors for the fulfilment of the 1st Defendant’s obligations under the L/I.

2.  Judgment had already been entered against the 1st Defendant.  The 3rd Defendant had indicated in his Acknowledgment of Service that he did not intend to contest these proceedings, and he has not appeared this morning.  This is the trial primarily against the 2nd Defendant.

3.  The Plaintiff’s claim is based primarily on the L/I, as well as the documentary evidence concerning the payment of the deposit and the partial refund made to the Plaintiff.  There remains an outstanding balance of HK$4,500,000.  The contemporaneous documents concerning the Plaintiff’s demands for repayment did not reveal any dispute over the liability to repay the deposit. 

4.  Bluntly, it is difficult to see what defence there is to the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant.  The 2nd Defendant has not appeared this morning to advance the allegations contained in his Defence.

5.  In the premises, I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the terms of the draft judgment before the court as amended.

 (Anthony Chan)
 Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Tom Ng, instructed by Robertsons, for the Plaintiff

The 2nd Defendant was not represented and did not appear

The 3rd Defendant was not represented and did not appear