Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Acu exemption

  • 2 Jul 2004

    JEANNY LIE v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH

    Citation
    JEANNY LIE v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV362/2003

    Appeals dismissed because appellants failed to put in issue or contradict the Respondent's unchallenged evidence that it was authorised to operate an ACU since 1980; the ACU exemption applied to the facilities and appellants produced no substantial evidence that the debts were illegal or that demands related to pre-1984 loans, so there was no substantial dispute to set aside the statutory demands.

  • 2 Jul 2004

    JOHN WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH

    Citation
    JOHN WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV363/2003

    Appeals dismissed because appellants failed to put in issue the factual basis for the respondent's ACU exemption (the respondent's incorporation outside Singapore and its authorisation to operate an ACU since 27 February 1980 were unchallenged and within the deputy manager's knowledge), there was no evidence the demands sought monies loaned exclusively before the 1984 exemption, and the illegality defence therefore did not amount to a substantial dispute; costs awarded on an indemnity basis due to the exceptional lack of merit in the appeals.

  • 2 Jul 2004

    WILLIAM WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH

    Citation
    WILLIAM WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV361/2003

    The appeals were dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate a substantial dispute: they did not challenge or contradict the Respondent's uncontroverted evidence that it was incorporated outside Singapore and authorised to operate an ACU since 27 February 1980, and the judge's finding that the demands related to revolving facilities likely post-dating the 1984 ACU exemption was unchallenged; accordingly the statutory demands were properly maintained and set-aside relief refused; costs awarded on an indemnity basis due to the exceptional lack of merit in the appeals.