RESONA BANK LTD v. LAM SIE AND OTHERS

RESONA BANK LTD v. LAM SIE AND OTHERS

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to establish any credible defence to the summary judgment: contemporaneous bank statements and an unrebutted memo demonstrated awareness and lack of complaint, and the proposed post‑judgment accounting report was cumulative and would not have altered the result, so leave to admit it was properly refused.

Citation
RESONA BANK LTD v. LAM SIE AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Resona Bank Limited (formerly The Daiwa Bank, Limited); 1st Defendant/appellant: Lam Sie; 2nd Defendant/appellant: Lam Oi Ching; 3rd Defendant: Shum Chi Man
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 June 2005
Case Number
CACV383/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (appeal From Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From HCA No.11870 of 1999
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Alleged Misappropriation/dissipation, Creditor Guarantees
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Banking Law Guarantees Summary Judgment Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Alleged Misappropriation/dissipation Creditor Guarantees

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Resona Bank Limited (formerly The Daiwa Bank, Limited)

Plaintiff/respondent

Lam Sie

1st Defendant/appellant

Lam Oi Ching

2nd Defendant/appellant

Shum Chi Man

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (appeal From Summary Judgment) / Court of Appeal Hearing and Judgment on Appeal From HCA No.11870 of 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants established a credible triable defence to summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether the alleged dissipation/unauthorised transfers were proven or prima facie shown
  3. 3 Whether leave should be granted to adduce post‑judgment accounting evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendants failed to establish any credible defence to the summary judgment: contemporaneous bank statements and an unrebutted memo demonstrated awareness and lack of complaint, and the proposed post‑judgment accounting report was cumulative and would not have altered the result, so leave to admit it was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment below for the plaintiff in the sum of 34536368.66 HKD is affirmed