Michael Eric Alexander Bos Mak v. Wocom Commodities Ltd. and Others

Michael Eric Alexander Bos Mak v. Wocom Commodities Ltd. and Others

On the facts and credibility findings the court held there was no stop/loss order given at the Sheraton; the $1.8020 "or better" limit was placed and subsequently cancelled by the plaintiff; the $1.8100 bid order placed at 14:50/14:51 was given with plaintiff's authorisation; the 1st Defendant acted as principal in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
Michael Eric Alexander Bos Mak v. Wocom Commodities Ltd. and Others
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Eric Alexander Bos Mak; 1st Defendant: Wocom Commodities Limited; 2nd Defendant: LEUNG Hing-ping; 3rd Defendant: HUNG Cheung-hon
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 June 1994
Case Number
HCCL19/1991
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Full Trial Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed; judgment entered for 1st Defendant on counterclaim
Legal Topics
Foreign Exchange Trading, Stop Loss Orders, Undisclosed Principal, Rescission, Counterclaim for Debt, Telephone Transcript Evidence, Credit Control
Source Language
en
Contract Agency Commercial Law Evidence Foreign Exchange Trading Stop Loss Orders Undisclosed Principal Rescission +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Eric Alexander Bos Mak

Plaintiff

Wocom Commodities Limited

1st Defendant

LEUNG Hing-ping

2nd Defendant

HUNG Cheung-hon

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Full Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff gave stop/loss orders at Sheraton on 9 July 1990
  2. 2 Whether the $1.8020 "or better" instruction was plaintiff's order or a missed stop/loss
  3. 3 Whether the $1.8100 bid stop/loss placed at 14:51 was authorised by plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts and credibility findings the court held there was no stop/loss order given at the Sheraton; the $1.8020 "or better" limit was placed and subsequently cancelled by the plaintiff; the $1.8100 bid order placed at 14:50/14:51 was given with plaintiff's authorisation; the 1st Defendant acted as principal in spot foreign exchange and the plaintiff was aware of that trading arrangement; accordingly the plaintiff's claims (including rescission/secret profits) fail and the 1st Defendant succeeds on its counterclaim for the outstanding indebtedness and interest.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; judgment entered for 1st Defendant on counterclaim

Orders

  • Judgment for 1st Defendant on counterclaim in the sum of HK$23,117,211.02
  • Interest on that judgment at 2% above Hong Kong prime lending rate from the relevant dates; parties to compute and agree detailed figures (court left exact computation to parties)