TAM KING FU v. MOBIL OIL HONG KONG LTD.

TAM KING FU v. MOBIL OIL HONG KONG LTD.

The applications were dismissed because documentary evidence contradicted the applicants' assertions, they failed to take reasonable precautions to know the effect of the documents (defeating non est factum), the misrepresentation claim was inherently incredible and unsupported, there was no genuine triable issue or substantial dispute about liability or amount, and therefore the statutory demands could not be set aside; respondent was granted leave to present bankruptcy petitions.

Citation
TAM KING FU v. MOBIL OIL HONG KONG LTD.
Parties
Applicant (debtor): Yen Kin Kong; Applicant (debtor): Tam King Fu; Respondent (creditor): Mobil Oil Hong Kong Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 April 2000
Case Number
HCSD43/1999
Procedural Posture
Statutory Demand Set Aside Application / Decision on Application (applications Dismissed); Leave Granted to Respondent to Present Bankruptcy Petitions
Outcome
Applications dismissed; costs awarded to respondent; leave granted to respondent to present bankruptcy petitions against each applicant forthwith.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Non Est Factum, Misrepresentation, Guarantee Enforcement, Bankruptcy Petition, Entire Agreement Clause
Source Language
EN
Insolvency Contract Commercial Law Guarantee Law Statutory Demand Non Est Factum Misrepresentation Guarantee Enforcement +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yen Kin Kong

Applicant (debtor)

Tam King Fu

Applicant (debtor)

Mobil Oil Hong Kong Limited

Respondent (creditor)

Procedural Posture

Statutory Demand Set Aside Application / Decision on Application (applications Dismissed); Leave Granted to Respondent to Present Bankruptcy Petitions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demands should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the guarantees are void for non est factum
  3. 3 Whether the guarantees were procured by misrepresentation or inducement

Ratio Decidendi

The applications were dismissed because documentary evidence contradicted the applicants' assertions, they failed to take reasonable precautions to know the effect of the documents (defeating non est factum), the misrepresentation claim was inherently incredible and unsupported, there was no genuine triable issue or substantial dispute about liability or amount, and therefore the statutory demands could not be set aside; respondent was granted leave to present bankruptcy petitions.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed; costs awarded to respondent; leave granted to respondent to present bankruptcy petitions against each applicant forthwith.

Orders

  • Applications HCSD 42/1999 and HCSD 43/1999 dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Mobil Oil Hong Kong Limited