A Win Worldwide Ltd v Triton Noodle Food (Global) Ltd Formerly Known As Triple Noodle & Food (Global) Ltd

CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
Judgment Date21 March 2014
Judgement NumberDCCJ4271/2013
Subject MatterCivil Action
DCCJ4271/2013 A WIN WORLDWIDE LTD v. TRITON NOODLE FOOD (GLOBAL) LTD formerly known as TRIPLE NOODLE & FOOD (GLOBAL) LTD

DCCJ 4271/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 4271 OF 2013

________________________

BETWEEN

A-WIN WORLDWIDE LIMITED Plaintiff

and

TRITON NOODLE FOOD (GLOBAL) LIMITED
formerly known as
TRIPLE NOODLE & FOOD (GLOBAL) LIMITED
Defendant

________________________

Before: Deputy District Judge A Chow in Chambers (Open to the public)
Date of Hearing: 21 March 2014
Date of Decision: 21 March 2014

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1. As I have already stated right at the beginning of this hearing the law surrounding Order 14 has been well established, the burden is always on the defendant to show that there is a viable defence. However, it is also trite that that burden is a low one.

2. The plaintiff’s claim is fairly simple. It is based on a written agreement. The defendant’s affirmation in opposition raised three defences: First, in paragraph 38 of Hui Mei Lai’s affirmation in opposition, it is stated : “ I verily believed that the consultancy agreement was not duly approved by the then Board”; Second, the same paragraph, it is also stated;

“… the Consultancy Agreement also failed to set out the services to be provided by the Plaintiff”; Third, in paragraph 42, it is stated: “the plaintiff should not be entitled to claim the summons of HK$360,000 or any at all because the Plaintiff did not discharge its duties and responsibility under the alleged Consultancy Agreement and there was no consideration provided by the Plaintiff.”

3. Now, I must look at the consultancy agreement and test it against the normal requirement of a valid, legally enforceable contract.

4. First, was it properly executed? The agreement has no signature, it only has a stamp on it. On this point alone, it is questionable if it is a legally enforceable contract.

5. Second, we look at the background information of the usual five items that we have to look at : who? What? Where? When? And why?

6. Let us look at who. We have two limited companies purporting to enter into a written contract. Who contracted with whom? We have no information on that. The information in support did not state who represented the plaintiff limited company, negotiated with...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT