SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

The plaintiffs demonstrated a seriously arguable case that the fraud exception applied to prevent payment under the letter of credit; consequently the court refused to discharge the interlocutory injunction and dismissed the defendant's application to do so.

Citation
SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Plaintiff: SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LIMITED; 2nd Plaintiff: SUMMER SEA PRODUCT OCMPANY LIMITED; 1st Defendant: SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: INUDSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 July 1998
Case Number
HCA493/1998
Procedural Posture
Contract Dispute; Injunction Relating to Letter of Credit / Application to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction (interlocutory Stage)
Outcome
Application by 1st Defendant to discharge injunction dismissed; injunction maintained
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Fraud Exception to Letters of Credit, Interlocutory Relief, Oral Variation, Evidential Assessment
Source Language
EN
Contract Equity Commercial Law International Trade Banking (letters of Credit) Injunctions Fraud Exception to Letters of Credit Interlocutory Relief +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUMMER COMMODITIES TRADING LIMITED

1st Plaintiff

SUMMER SEA PRODUCT OCMPANY LIMITED

2nd Plaintiff

SEQULIA CONFECTIONERY COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

INUDSTRIAL BANK OF KOREA

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Dispute; Injunction Relating to Letter of Credit / Application to Discharge Interlocutory Injunction (interlocutory Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interlocutory injunction restraining payment under an irrevocable letter of credit should be maintained
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs established a seriously arguable case that fraud was the only realistic inference (fraud exception)
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's evidence destroyed plaintiffs' arguable case

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs demonstrated a seriously arguable case that the fraud exception applied to prevent payment under the letter of credit; consequently the court refused to discharge the interlocutory injunction and dismissed the defendant's application to do so.

Court Disposition

Application by 1st Defendant to discharge injunction dismissed; injunction maintained

Orders

  • 1st Defendant's application to discharge the Injunction Order dated 10 January 1998 is dismissed
  • The Injunction Order dated 10 January 1998 remains in force