HEC FINANCE 03 LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND ANOTHER

HEC FINANCE 03 LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND ANOTHER

Summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted because there is a genuine factual dispute — specifically whether defendants knew of an arrangement releasing secured shares — which cannot be resolved without cross-examination and which, if proved for defendants, could render the guarantees unenforceable; costs of the summons were ordered in the cause with certification for two counsel each.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2840
Parties
Plaintiff: HEC Finance 03 Limited; 1st Defendant: Chen Jiarong; 2nd Defendant: Kingkey Enterprise Holdings Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Case Number
HCA779/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Debt and Enforcement of Guarantees / Application for Summary Judgment (heard in Chambers)
Outcome
Summary judgment refused; unconditional leave to defend granted; costs of the summons to be in the cause; certificate for two counsel granted.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Leave to Defend, Enforceability of Guarantees, Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Conclusive Evidence Clause, Duty to Disclose to Surety
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Debt Guarantee Law Securities Collateral Summary Judgment Leave to Defend Enforceability of Guarantees +4 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

HEC Finance 03 Limited

Plaintiff

Chen Jiarong

1st Defendant

Kingkey Enterprise Holdings Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Debt and Enforcement of Guarantees / Application for Summary Judgment (heard in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment should be entered against the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the guarantees are enforceable or are discharged by extinguishment of debt
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure/misrepresentation by the creditor renders the guarantees unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted because there is a genuine factual dispute — specifically whether defendants knew of an arrangement releasing secured shares — which cannot be resolved without cross-examination and which, if proved for defendants, could render the guarantees unenforceable; costs of the summons were ordered in the cause with certification for two counsel each.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment refused; unconditional leave to defend granted; costs of the summons to be in the cause; certificate for two counsel granted.

Orders

  • Unconditional leave to defend granted to the Defendants
  • Summary judgment application dismissed