AU HEUNG BEN v. SO LIANG KI ALBERT

AU HEUNG BEN v. SO LIANG KI ALBERT

Defendant admitted the Subject Loan but failed to particularise or provide evidence that the Remaining Loans constituted interest or that any interest exceeded the statutory 60% pa cap; his late, bare assertions did not raise a triable issue and summary judgment was therefore properly entered for the plaintiff.

Citation
[2023] HKDC 203
Parties
Plaintiff: AU HEUNG BEN; Defendant: SO LIANG KI ALBERT
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 February 2023
Case Number
DCCJ4868/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (debt/loan) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (rehearing)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for the plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Oral Loan Agreements, Usury/unenforceability, Pleading Particulars, Discovery
Source Language
EN
Contract Debt Recovery Civil Procedure Moneylenders Ordinance Summary Judgment Oral Loan Agreements Usury/unenforceability Pleading Particulars +1 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AU HEUNG BEN

Plaintiff

SO LIANG KI ALBERT

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (debt/loan) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (rehearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has a real triable defence to the plaintiff’s claim for the Subject Loan
  2. 2 Whether items in the Schedule (Remaining Loans) are properly characterised as interest on the Subject Loan
  3. 3 Whether, if characterised as interest, the effective rate exceeds the statutory cap under the Money Lenders Ordinance rendering the loan unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant admitted the Subject Loan but failed to particularise or provide evidence that the Remaining Loans constituted interest or that any interest exceeded the statutory 60% pa cap; his late, bare assertions did not raise a triable issue and summary judgment was therefore properly entered for the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for the plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the plaintiff with certificate for counsel
  • Order nisi that costs of and occasioned by the appeal be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff to be summarily assessed on paper