SKYRUN LIGHT INDUSTRY (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SWIFT RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS

SKYRUN LIGHT INDUSTRY (HONG KONG) CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SWIFT RESOURCES LTD AND OTHERS

The August Agreement, read objectively, imposed binding payment obligations on the defendants to pay US$12,000,000 by instalments and was not an option or subject to the alleged oral preconditions; plaintiffs performed by withdrawing from management; defendants breached and are jointly and severally liable for the unpaid balance and contractual interest; the 2nd defendant's guarantee and the joint undertaking are enforceable.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 753
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Party A (unnamed company); 2nd Plaintiff: Guo Ming Fu; 1st Defendant: Swift Resources Limited; 2nd Defendant: Madam Ma Muk Ying
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Case Number
HCA1278/2014
Procedural Posture
Contractual Dispute / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Contract Construction, Condition Precedent Vs Obligation, Breach of Contract, Enforcement of Guarantee and Undertaking, Calculation of Contractual Interest
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Civil Procedure Guarantee Contract Construction Condition Precedent Vs Obligation Breach of Contract Enforcement of Guarantee and Undertaking +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Party A (unnamed company)

1st Plaintiff

Guo Ming Fu

2nd Plaintiff

Swift Resources Limited

1st Defendant

Madam Ma Muk Ying

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contractual Dispute / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the August Agreement created an obligation to pay US$12,000,000 or merely an option/condition precedent
  2. 2 Whether alleged oral preconditions (listing and prior repayment) formed part of the August Agreement
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs provided consideration by withdrawing from management

Ratio Decidendi

The August Agreement, read objectively, imposed binding payment obligations on the defendants to pay US$12,000,000 by instalments and was not an option or subject to the alleged oral preconditions; plaintiffs performed by withdrawing from management; defendants breached and are jointly and severally liable for the unpaid balance and contractual interest; the 2nd defendant's guarantee and the joint undertaking are enforceable.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs

Orders

  • The 1st and 2nd defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiffs US$17,918,769.33
  • The 1st and 2nd defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay interest at the rate of US$9,928.78 per day from 20 November 2014 on the sum of US$17,918,769.33 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the prevailing judgment rate