WANG JUN v. SIN YUK HUNG AND ANOTHER

WANG JUN v. SIN YUK HUNG AND ANOTHER

The 1st Defendant failed to discharge the burden of adducing cogent evidence to establish the Agreements were a sham or that she was not the borrower; the 2nd Defendant failed to prosecute the appeal and his asserted defences lacked substance; accordingly the Master’s summary judgment was correctly affirmed.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1490
Parties
Plaintiff: Wang Jun; 1st Defendant: Sin Yuk Hung; 2nd Defendant: Gao Qing
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 July 2020
Case Number
HCA2917/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt Recovery / Contract (loan and Guarantee) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (high Court) Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Sham Transaction, Enforceability of Guarantee, Burden of Proof, Costs
Source Language
EN
Contract Civil Procedure Debt Recovery Guarantee Equity Security Interests Summary Judgment Sham Transaction Enforceability of Guarantee +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wang Jun

Plaintiff

Sin Yuk Hung

1st Defendant

Gao Qing

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt Recovery / Contract (loan and Guarantee) / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (high Court) Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Agreements were a sham and thus unenforceable against the 1st Defendant
  2. 2 Whether the 1st Defendant established an arguable defence to defeat summary judgment
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant was bound as guarantor and whether his defences had substance

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st Defendant failed to discharge the burden of adducing cogent evidence to establish the Agreements were a sham or that she was not the borrower; the 2nd Defendant failed to prosecute the appeal and his asserted defences lacked substance; accordingly the Master’s summary judgment was correctly affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and summary judgment of Master Anthony Chan (25 July 2019) affirmed
  • Judgment for Plaintiff against the Defendants for repayment of HK$30,000,000 plus interest at 15% per annum (as per the Agreements)