CITIBANK, N.A. v. HEROES INDUSTRIAL LTD

CITIBANK, N.A. v. HEROES INDUSTRIAL LTD

Summary judgment was appropriate against the 1st and 3rd defendants because they had no bona fide defence; the 2nd defendant raised triable issues concerning the bank's good faith and calculation of the termination fee under clause 11 and therefore was given unconditional leave to defend; absent contractual provision for default interest the court will apply the judgment rate.

Citation
CITIBANK, N.A. v. HEROES INDUSTRIAL LTD
Parties
Plaintiff: CITIBANK, N.A.; 1st Defendant: HEROES INDUSTRIAL LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: NG PAK HOK; 3rd Defendant: LEUNG SAU LING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 September 2006
Case Number
DCCJ2875/2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Action – Summary Judgment Application / Order 14 Summary Judgment Hearing
Outcome
Judgment entered against the 1st and 3rd Defendants; 2nd Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; costs and interest orders made.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee and Indemnity, Termination Fees, Set Off, Good Faith in Contractual Exercise of Rights, Interest on Judgment
Source Language
EN
Contract Guarantee Banking Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Guarantee and Indemnity Termination Fees Set Off +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CITIBANK, N.A.

Plaintiff

HEROES INDUSTRIAL LIMITED

1st Defendant

NG PAK HOK

2nd Defendant

LEUNG SAU LING

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action – Summary Judgment Application / Order 14 Summary Judgment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants have real or bona fide defence to resist summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the 2nd defendant's potential cross-claim can operate as a defence for the 1st and 3rd defendants
  3. 3 Whether termination of the investment account pursuant to clause 11 was valid and whether the bank acted in good faith in determining the termination fee

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was appropriate against the 1st and 3rd defendants because they had no bona fide defence; the 2nd defendant raised triable issues concerning the bank's good faith and calculation of the termination fee under clause 11 and therefore was given unconditional leave to defend; absent contractual provision for default interest the court will apply the judgment rate.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered against the 1st and 3rd Defendants; 2nd Defendant granted unconditional leave to defend; costs and interest orders made.

Orders

  • Judgment against 1st and 3rd Defendants jointly and severally for HK$241,681.91 with interest at the judgment rate from 13/6/2006 until full payment
  • Unconditional leave for the 2nd Defendant to defend