CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL

CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL

The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of actual or apparent judicial bias; the judge did not err in admitting Tse's 3rd affidavit as a case management exercise; the affidavit evidence (officer's knowledge supplemented by subsequent affidavit) satisfied Order 88 r5 to prove sums due; allegations about refinancing and credit reporting, even if made out, did not constitute a defence to enforcement of mortgage obligations; the factual challenges to interest calculations were either new, unsupported or misconceived; costs awarded to plaintiff on an indemnity basis under the mortgage clause.

Citation
CHINA CITIC BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DURRANT SIMON PATRICK MICHAEL
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): China Citic Bank International Limited; Defendant (appellant): Durrant Simon Patrick Michael
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
23 June 2016
Case Number
CACV127/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (mortgage Enforcement) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From HCMP No. 3196 of 2013
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Recusal/apparent Bias, Admission of Affidavit/new Evidence, Calculation of Default Interest, Clean Hands Doctrine, Indemnity Costs
Source Language
EN
Mortgage Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Credit Reporting Data Privacy Costs Summary Judgment Recusal/apparent Bias +4 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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

China Citic Bank International Limited

Plaintiff (respondent)

Durrant Simon Patrick Michael

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (mortgage Enforcement) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From HCMP No. 3196 of 2013

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was actual or apparent judicial bias warranting recusal
  2. 2 Whether Tse's 3rd affidavit was properly admitted (case management discretion)
  3. 3 Whether affidavit evidence complied with Order 88 r5(3)&(6) to prove sums due and payable

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because there was no evidence of actual or apparent judicial bias; the judge did not err in admitting Tse's 3rd affidavit as a case management exercise; the affidavit evidence (officer's knowledge supplemented by subsequent affidavit) satisfied Order 88 r5 to prove sums due; allegations about refinancing and credit reporting, even if made out, did not constitute a defence to enforcement of mortgage obligations; the factual challenges to interest calculations were either new, unsupported or misconceived; costs awarded to plaintiff on an indemnity basis under the mortgage clause.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the plaintiff to be taxed on an indemnity basis