劉曉東 AND ANOTHER v. CHASE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

劉曉東 AND ANOTHER v. CHASE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Court held that although the Huarong Assignment did not divest the plaintiffs' claim, the 1st and 2nd Transfers were defective because Cinda SZ's execution by Wang exceeded the authority granted by the Power of Attorney and the contemporaneous documents did not evidence valid written authorisation; the Cinda Deed could not cure defects pre‑existing at issue date of proceedings and ostensible authority or post‑OS ratification did not validate the transfers. Consequently there was no valid assignment of the Legal Charge to the plaintiffs and the application was dismissed.

Citation
劉曉東 AND ANOTHER v. CHASE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiffs: 劉曉明 及 阮國次; 1st Defendant: 卓鵬發展有限公司 (CHASE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED); 2nd Defendant: 駿偉投資有限公司 (CHAMPION INVESTMENT LIMITED); 3rd Defendant: 佛山市摩力克公司
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
11 January 2013
Case Number
HCMP1709/2009
Procedural Posture
Mortgagee Action for Payment and Possession / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage, Legal Charge, Assignment of Debts, Execution of Deeds, Authority and Power of Attorney, Registration of Charges, Ostensible Authority
Source Language
EN
Property Conveyancing Land Registration Company Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Legal Charge Assignment of Debts +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

劉曉明 及 阮國次

Plaintiffs

卓鵬發展有限公司 (CHASE EAGLE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED)

1st Defendant

駿偉投資有限公司 (CHAMPION INVESTMENT LIMITED)

2nd Defendant

佛山市摩力克公司

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Mortgagee Action for Payment and Possession / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Legal Charge had been assigned to Huarong and if that assignment defeated plaintiffs' title
  2. 2 Whether pre‑March 2009 irregularities affected plaintiffs' title or were cured by March 2009 transactions
  3. 3 Whether the 1st and 2nd Transfers were validly executed (signatures, seals, corporate authority)

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that although the Huarong Assignment did not divest the plaintiffs' claim, the 1st and 2nd Transfers were defective because Cinda SZ's execution by Wang exceeded the authority granted by the Power of Attorney and the contemporaneous documents did not evidence valid written authorisation; the Cinda Deed could not cure defects pre‑existing at issue date of proceedings and ostensible authority or post‑OS ratification did not validate the transfers. Consequently there was no valid assignment of the Legal Charge to the plaintiffs and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed with costs to the defendants
  • Certificate for two counsel to be taxed if not agreed