DMT FINANCE LTD v. MING KEE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

DMT FINANCE LTD v. MING KEE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Contemporary documentary evidence and the objective terms of the Facility Letter, Customer Trading Agreement and related documents established that the personal guarantee and the undated HK$4,000,000 cheque were provided as integral security for the HK$8,000,000 facility. The past consideration argument failed on the facts and on the wording of the Guarantee (which referred to continuing credit) and the defendant's contrary assertions were not sufficient to defeat an Order 14 application. Accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for the reduced sum after realization of securities, with interest and indemnity costs.

Citation
DMT FINANCE LTD v. MING KEE INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: DMT FINANCE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: MING KEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: CHAN YING MING, SIMON
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 June 1998
Case Number
HCCL11/1998
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt Judgment (order 14 Summary Judgment) / Hearing on Order 14 Summons and Delivery of Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Personal Guarantee, Dishonoured Cheque, Margin Call/security for Loan, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Guarantee Negotiable Instruments Civil Procedure Costs Summary Judgment Personal Guarantee Dishonoured Cheque +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DMT FINANCE LIMITED

Plaintiff

MING KEE INVESTMENTS LIMITED

1st Defendant

CHAN YING MING, SIMON

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt Judgment (order 14 Summary Judgment) / Hearing on Order 14 Summons and Delivery of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the personal guarantee constituted valid consideration or was past consideration
  2. 2 Whether the undated personal cheque was security for the HK$8,000,000 facility or for an unrelated unused securities trading facility
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate given the affidavits and documentation

Ratio Decidendi

Contemporary documentary evidence and the objective terms of the Facility Letter, Customer Trading Agreement and related documents established that the personal guarantee and the undated HK$4,000,000 cheque were provided as integral security for the HK$8,000,000 facility. The past consideration argument failed on the facts and on the wording of the Guarantee (which referred to continuing credit) and the defendant's contrary assertions were not sufficient to defeat an Order 14 application. Accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for the reduced sum after realization of securities, with interest and indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff against 2nd Defendant

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant in the sum of HK$3,516,329.00
  • Judgment sum to bear interest at the judgment rate from time to time prevailing until payment