CITIBANK, N. A. v. ASIAGLOBE TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

CITIBANK, N. A. v. ASIAGLOBE TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to particularise any relevant conflict of interest and W&G had not acted in any capacity that produced relevant confidential information; the new tenancy was granted without the plaintiff's written consent after demand and breached clause 6.2(c), constituting an...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
CITIBANK, N. A. v. ASIAGLOBE TRADE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Citibank, N.A.; 1st Defendant: Asiaglobe Trade Limited; 2nd Defendant: Asiaglobe Resources Limited; 3rd Defendant: Kilakanchery Krishnan Balasubramanian
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
HCMP1760/2014
Procedural Posture
Mortgage Enforcement / Banking Facilities / Guarantees / Appeal From Master's Order Heard in Court of First Instance (dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Security, Guarantee and Indemnity, Conflict of Interest, Tenancy Vs Mortgage, Costs on Indemnity Basis
Source Language
en
Banking Property Contract Equity Civil Procedure Mortgage Enforcement of Security Guarantee and Indemnity +3 more

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Citibank, N.A.

Plaintiff

Asiaglobe Trade Limited

1st Defendant

Asiaglobe Resources Limited

2nd Defendant

Kilakanchery Krishnan Balasubramanian

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Mortgage Enforcement / Banking Facilities / Guarantees / Appeal From Master's Order Heard in Court of First Instance (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Alleged conflict of interest by plaintiff's solicitors
  2. 2 Whether order for vacant possession should be set aside because property was subject to a continuing tenancy
  3. 3 Whether amounts claimed are proven and conclusive under the legal charge

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to particularise any relevant conflict of interest and W&G had not acted in any capacity that produced relevant confidential information; the new tenancy was granted without the plaintiff's written consent after demand and breached clause 6.2(c), constituting an event of default together with non-payment on demand; the bank's statements of account were conclusive under clause 15 in the absence of manifest error; costs on an indemnity basis were properly awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Original master order upheld: plaintiff to recover jointly and severally from D1, D2 and D3 the sum of HK$21,998,629.81 plus interest.
  • Order that D3 deliver up vacant possession of the property comprised in the legal charge (Flat A, 10/F Tower 1B The Latitude, No.638 Prince Edward Road East) within 28 days of service of the order.