|
DCCJ 515/2022
[2025] HKDC 1450
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
CIVIL ACTION NO 515 OF 2022
-------------------------
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
HUNG TAT
A.I. GARMENT MACHINERY COMPANY LIMITED
|
Plaintiff
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
HONG KONG MELT
BLOWING PRODUCTION COMPANY LIMITED
|
1
st
Defendant
|
|
|
MASK KING TECHNOLOGY
COMPANY LIMITED
|
2
nd
Defendant
|
-------------------------
|
Before:
|
Deputy District Judge Isaac Chan in Court
|
|
Date of Trial:
|
10-14 & 28 February 2025
|
|
Date of Judgment:
|
27 August 2025
|
-------------------------
JUDGMENT
-------------------------
Introduction
1.
The plaintiff was the seller of certain face-masks production machineries. The 1
st
defendant was the buyer, and the 2
nd
defendant (which is the plaintiff in the counterclaim) was the user of such machines.
2.
This is the trial for (i) the plaintiff’s claim against the 1
st
defendant for the outstanding balance of the purchase price, as well as (ii) the 2
nd
defendant’s counterclaim against the plaintiff for certain losses arising from the malfunctioning of such machineries.
3.
Facts that are undisputed or indisputable are scarce in the present case. They can be summarized as follows.
4.
The plaintiff was in the business of selling garment manufacturing machinery as well as purpose-built machinery. It was represented by Mr. Hung Kwai Chuen (
“Hung”
), one of its shareholders, in all incidents that are material to the present case.
5.
The 1
st
defendant was a manufacturer of “melt-blown” fabric (
“Fabric”
), which was the main material used for the production of face masks. The 2
nd
defendant entered into the business of manufacturing face masks at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Both the 1
st
and 2
nd
defendants were owned by Mr. Wong Dak Sun (
“Wong”
) and operated at a factory in Fanling (
“Factory”
). Wong also owned Palinda Wines Limited (
“Palinda”
) which operated at an office at Hung Hom. Wong deployed both defendants and Palinda interchangeably in those transactions that are material to the present action.
6.
On 20 October 2020, the plaintiff sold to the 1
st
defendant a welder machine which was used to repair the ear-strings of face masks (
“Welder Machine”
) under an invoice dated the same date for a price of $3,500. The Welder Machine was delivered by the plaintiff on a date that is not mentioned in any of the evidence.
7.
On 23 October 2020, the plaintiff as seller and the 1
st
defendant as purchaser entered into a sale and purchase agreement (
“S&P Agreement”
) for certain machinery that produced a model of face masks known as “KF-94” (
“Subj
| 
Back
