ORIX ASIA LTD. v. GRANT FORWARD INDUSTRIAL LTD.

ORIX ASIA LTD. v. GRANT FORWARD INDUSTRIAL LTD.

The court held the trade finance facility fell within Schedule 1 paragraph 11 and is exempt from the Money Lenders Ordinance, entitling the plaintiff to judgment for that facility; non-compliance with s20(1) gives guarantors an arguable defense under s20(4) so unconditional leave to defend was granted to the guarantors; the borrower (1st defendant) was ordered to make an immediate interim payment because the court was satisfied plaintiff would likely recover at least the principal.

Citation
ORIX ASIA LTD. v. GRANT FORWARD INDUSTRIAL LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff: ORIX ASIA LIMITED; 1st Defendant: GRANT FORWARD INDUSTRIAL LTD; 2nd Defendant: HO CHI YING; 3rd Defendant: HO KIM FUNG; 4th Defendant: INFA INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AESTHETICIANS LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2000
Case Number
HCCL79/1999
Procedural Posture
Commercial Action Summary Judgment Application / Hearing and Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Partial summary judgment for plaintiff on the trade finance facility; unconditional leave to defend for guarantors; interim payment ordered from 1st defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee Enforcement, Statutory Non Compliance, Interim Payment, Trade Finance
Source Language
EN
Contract Commercial Law Guarantee and Surety Money Lenders Ordinance Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Guarantee Enforcement Statutory Non Compliance +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 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ORIX ASIA LIMITED

Plaintiff

GRANT FORWARD INDUSTRIAL LTD

1st Defendant

HO CHI YING

2nd Defendant

HO KIM FUNG

3rd Defendant

INFA INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF AESTHETICIANS LTD

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Action Summary Judgment Application / Hearing and Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trade finance facility is exempt from the Money Lenders Ordinance under Schedule 1 paragraph 11
  2. 2 Whether non-compliance with Money Lenders Ordinance s20(1) prevents enforcement of guarantees under s20(4)
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment is appropriate against each defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the trade finance facility fell within Schedule 1 paragraph 11 and is exempt from the Money Lenders Ordinance, entitling the plaintiff to judgment for that facility; non-compliance with s20(1) gives guarantors an arguable defense under s20(4) so unconditional leave to defend was granted to the guarantors; the borrower (1st defendant) was ordered to make an immediate interim payment because the court was satisfied plaintiff would likely recover at least the principal.

Court Disposition

Partial summary judgment for plaintiff on the trade finance facility; unconditional leave to defend for guarantors; interim payment ordered from 1st defendant

Orders

  • Judgment entered against all four defendants in the sum of 1,831,672.52 HKD in respect of the trade finance facility
  • Unconditional leave to defend granted to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants