KOREAN EXCHANGE BANK, HONG KONG BRANCH AND ANOTHER v. SSCP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Paragraph 4 of the Reply alleging the Agreement was illegal was unarguable and liable to be struck out because the pleaded statutory breaches did not establish a sufficient nexus to render the Agreement illegal or vitiate civil enforceability, and the pleaded allegations of statutory breaches were remote and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- KOREAN EXCHANGE BANK, HONG KONG BRANCH AND ANOTHER v. SSCP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: Korean Exchange Bank, Hong Kong Branch; 2nd Plaintiff: WOORI BANK, HONG KONG BRANCH; 1st Defendant: SSCP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: SSCP COMPANY LIMITED; 3rd Defendant: STANLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED; 4th Defendant: SAMSUNG CHEMICAL (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED; 5th Defendant: M&C HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LIMITED
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 27 October 2014
- Case Number
- HCA146/2013
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Action to Set Aside Transfers and Ancillary Relief (fraudulent Disposition/charging Order Enforcement) / Interlocutory Strike‑out Summons Hearing and Decision (application to Strike Out Paragraph of Reply)
- Outcome
- Impugned plea (paragraph 4 of the Reply) struck out; related interrogatories withdrawn; costs ordered against P2 on a nisi basis
- Legal Topics
- Fraudulent Transfer (s60 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance), Illegality of Contract, Striking Out Pleadings, Pleading Particulars and Interrogatories, Charging Order, Mareva Injunction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Korean Exchange Bank, Hong Kong Branch
1st Plaintiff
WOORI BANK, HONG KONG BRANCH
2nd Plaintiff
SSCP HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LIMITED
1st Defendant
SSCP COMPANY LIMITED
2nd Defendant
STANLEY & ASSOCIATES LIMITED
3rd Defendant
SAMSUNG CHEMICAL (HONG KONG) COMPANY LIMITED
4th Defendant
M&C HOLDINGS (HONG KONG) LIMITED
5th Defendant
Procedural Posture
High Court Action to Set Aside Transfers and Ancillary Relief (fraudulent Disposition/charging Order Enforcement) / Interlocutory Strike‑out Summons Hearing and Decision (application to Strike Out Paragraph of Reply)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether paragraph 4 of the Reply alleging the Agreement was illegal and void/unenforceable is unarguable and should be struck out
- 2 Whether breaches of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, Companies Ordinance and Business Registration Ordinance render the Agreement illegal or otherwise affect civil enforceability
- 3 Whether allegations of statutory breaches by D3 are material or merely evidential propensity material admissible without being pleaded as a cause of action
Ratio Decidendi
Paragraph 4 of the Reply alleging the Agreement was illegal was unarguable and liable to be struck out because the pleaded statutory breaches did not establish a sufficient nexus to render the Agreement illegal or vitiate civil enforceability, and the pleaded allegations of statutory breaches were remote and improperly pleaded as material facts rather than evidence of propensity; accordingly the impugned plea and related interrogatories were struck out and withdrawn.
Court Disposition
Impugned plea (paragraph 4 of the Reply) struck out; related interrogatories withdrawn; costs ordered against P2 on a nisi basis
Orders
- The whole of paragraph 4 of the Reply is struck out
- Within 14 days P2 shall file and serve an Amended Reply with paragraph 4 crossed out in red
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment