UNION GLORY FINANCE INC. AND OTHERS v. MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD AND ANOTHER

UNION GLORY FINANCE INC. AND OTHERS v. MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD AND ANOTHER

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either Mr Lee or Mr Lo made the pleaded representation that the defendant had agreed to advance HK$200,000,000; alternatively, even if considered, plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary relationship/proximity to impose a duty of care and their reliance was unreasonable; accordingly the claims are dismissed.

Citation
UNION GLORY FINANCE INC. AND OTHERS v. MERRILL LYNCH INTERNATIONAL BANK LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Union Glory Finance Inc.; 2nd Plaintiff: Double Smart Finance Limited; 3rd Plaintiff: Hansom Finance Limited; 4th Plaintiff: CW Financing Limited (formerly known as Willie Financing Limited); 1st Defendant: Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited; 2nd Defendant: Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 September 2016
Case Number
HCA2494/2013
Procedural Posture
Negligent Misrepresentation (tort) / Judgment After Trial (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Duty of Care, Reliance, Causation, Costs
Source Language
EN
Tort Commercial Law Banking Law Negligent Misrepresentation Duty of Care Reliance Causation Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Union Glory Finance Inc.

1st Plaintiff

Double Smart Finance Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Hansom Finance Limited

3rd Plaintiff

CW Financing Limited (formerly known as Willie Financing Limited)

4th Plaintiff

Merrill Lynch International Bank Limited

1st Defendant

Merrill Lynch (Asia Pacific) Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Negligent Misrepresentation (tort) / Judgment After Trial (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants made the alleged representation that Merrill Lynch had agreed to lend HK$200,000,000
  2. 2 Whether defendants owed plaintiffs a duty of care in respect of the alleged representation
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs reasonably relied on the alleged representation

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that either Mr Lee or Mr Lo made the pleaded representation that the defendant had agreed to advance HK$200,000,000; alternatively, even if considered, plaintiffs failed to establish the necessary relationship/proximity to impose a duty of care and their reliance was unreasonable; accordingly the claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claims dismissed
  • Costs to follow the event; plaintiffs ordered to pay defendants' costs