WING HANG BANK LTD. v. LIU KAM YING AND OTHERS

WING HANG BANK LTD. v. LIU KAM YING AND OTHERS

Plaintiff proved a prima facie entitlement to judgment under the Guarantee; the 5th defendant failed to establish non est factum because he understood he was signing a guarantee, failed to show the bank was put on inquiry so undue influence defence fails, and failed to show the alleged misrepresentation was by the bank's agent; accordingly summary judgment was granted for the specified sums with interest and solicitor and own client costs.

Citation
WING HANG BANK LTD. v. LIU KAM YING AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: WING HANG BANK LIMITED; 1st Defendant: LIU KAM YING; 2nd Defendant: LAM SZE LAI; 3rd Defendant: TAT FUNG COTTON COMPANY LIMITED; 4th Defendant: CHAN CHEUNG KEI; 5th Defendant: CHAN SIU MING; 6th Defendant: TAT FUNG TEXTILE COMPANY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2002
Case Number
HCMP2519/2001
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Under RHC Order 88 (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Chambers Hearing; Summary Judgment Determination
Outcome
Judgment entered for plaintiff against 5th defendant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Guarantee Enforcement, Undue Influence, Non Est Factum, Misrepresentation, Costs
Source Language
EN
Banking Contract Guarantee Property Civil Procedure Equity Mortgage Summary Judgment +5 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WING HANG BANK LIMITED

Plaintiff

LIU KAM YING

1st Defendant

LAM SZE LAI

2nd Defendant

TAT FUNG COTTON COMPANY LIMITED

3rd Defendant

CHAN CHEUNG KEI

4th Defendant

CHAN SIU MING

5th Defendant

TAT FUNG TEXTILE COMPANY LIMITED

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Under RHC Order 88 (miscellaneous Proceedings) / Chambers Hearing; Summary Judgment Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff entitled to summary judgment under originating summons procedure
  2. 2 Whether 5th defendant is liable under the Guarantee
  3. 3 Whether defences of non est factum, undue influence and misrepresentation succeed

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff proved a prima facie entitlement to judgment under the Guarantee; the 5th defendant failed to establish non est factum because he understood he was signing a guarantee, failed to show the bank was put on inquiry so undue influence defence fails, and failed to show the alleged misrepresentation was by the bank's agent; accordingly summary judgment was granted for the specified sums with interest and solicitor and own client costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for plaintiff against 5th defendant

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the 5th defendant in the sum of HK$11,783,350.80 and US$294,097.38
  • Interest to accrue on the said sums from 31 July 2001 to date at the rates set out in paragraphs 3(3) to 3(7) of the 2nd affirmation of Lee Shun Wah dated 30 July 2001; from date of judgment to date of payment at the judgment rate