NAJEEB BARDISSY v. JOAQUIM D\'SOUZA AND OTHERS

NAJEEB BARDISSY v. JOAQUIM D\'SOUZA AND OTHERS

The Bank was not liable: the correspondence did not create a contract enforceable by the payer, there was no actionable misrepresentation or special relationship giving rise to a duty of care, and the Bank did not act dishonestly so as to incur accessory/constructive trust liability; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim against the Bank is dismissed.

Citation
NAJEEB BARDISSY v. JOAQUIM D\'SOUZA AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: NAJEEB BARDISSY; 1st Defendant: JOAQUIM D SOUZA; 2nd Defendant: YANG YOU LI; 3rd Defendant: VASTQUEEN LIMITED; 4th Defendant: BANK OF CHINA; 5th Defendant: CHOW SHIU KEUNG, SAMMY; 6th Defendant: ASTRO AIRLINES INC.
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
21 January 1999
Case Number
HCA9298/1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (contract/tort/banking) / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Receiving Bank Liability, Prime Bank Guarantee Fraud, Contract Formation, Accessory Liability, Dishonesty Standard
Source Language
EN
Contract Tort Trusts and Equity Banking Law Agency Misrepresentation Negligence Constructive Trust +5 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NAJEEB BARDISSY

Plaintiff

JOAQUIM D SOUZA

1st Defendant

YANG YOU LI

2nd Defendant

VASTQUEEN LIMITED

3rd Defendant

BANK OF CHINA

4th Defendant

CHOW SHIU KEUNG, SAMMY

5th Defendant

ASTRO AIRLINES INC.

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (contract/tort/banking) / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether correspondence between remitting bank and receiving bank gave rise to a contract enforceable by the payer
  2. 2 Whether the receiving bank made actionable negligent misrepresentations to the payer
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care or agency existed between receiving bank and payer

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank was not liable: the correspondence did not create a contract enforceable by the payer, there was no actionable misrepresentation or special relationship giving rise to a duty of care, and the Bank did not act dishonestly so as to incur accessory/constructive trust liability; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim against the Bank is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Bank (4th Defendant) to have costs nisi of the action