Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of guarantee

Legal area

Court

4 Feb 2025

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LTD (HONG KONG BRANCH) v. TOTAL ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 558
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA513/2023

The Court held that the Guarantee imposed a primary and concurrent liability allowing the Bank to demand payment without prior exhaustion against the Borrower; the Bank's demand and service to the guarantor's last known address were effective under the Guarantee; the Company failed to produce credible evidence of lack of director authority, of a common intention constructive trust affecting the Bank, or of a sham; consequently there was no triable issue and summary judgment for the Bank was granted for HK$250,880,311.30 plus interest with indemnity costs to the Bank.
15 May 2018

HAO TIAN FINANCE CO LTD v. WIN AGAIN LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 76
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1955/2014

Plaintiff proved the 1st Defendant breached the mortgage covenant by executing an undisclosed prior mortgage; Plaintiff was entitled to terminate the loan, recover the HK$8,000,000 principal, enforce the contractual interest rate and obtain costs; guarantor was jointly and severally liable; application for sale was adjourned to permit notification to prior mortgagees.
6 Jul 2010

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1807/2005

The court rejected the plaintiff's application to vary the order nisi to award indemnity costs, holding that contractual indemnity costs clauses cannot override the court's unfettered discretion to award costs; the normal party‑and‑party scale was appropriate on these facts and the trial was certified fit for two counsel for taxation of court appearance costs.
22 Jul 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FU MING KONG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FU MING KONG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7769/2000

The court found the defendants failed to prove the alleged oral agreements; contemporaneous documents and witness credibility supported plaintiff; the originating summons had been ordered to continue as if begun by writ so Order 88 rule 5(2) did not require production of original mortgage at trial; loss of the original mortgage and variation deed was proved on the balance of probabilities and did not defeat enforcement; judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the stated sums with interest and full indemnity costs and an order for delivery of vacant possession absent repayment.
22 Jul 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FU MING KONG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. FU MING KONG MICHAEL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3909/2000

The court found on factual and documentary evidence that the defendants admitted the indebtedness, the alleged oral agreements were not proven and were inherently improbable, the originals of the Mortgage and Variation Deed were lost while with the plaintiff's former solicitors and loss was proved on the balance of probabilities, and because the originating summons had been continued as if begun by writ Order 88 r5(2)'s original-document requirement did not apply; accordingly plaintiff entitled to judgment for the secured sums, interest, costs and delivery of possession as ordered.
21 Jun 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHUN KAM CHIU

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHUN KAM CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA919/2002

The cheque and its acceptance amounted to conditional payment satisfying condition (a); the parties acted on that basis and the guarantee was valid and enforceable; the creditor had no obligation to realise charged properties before enforcing the guarantee; the defendant's late, unpleaded and unsupported defences failed and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the sums claimed.
8 Jun 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHUN KAM CHIU

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHUN KAM CHIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA919/2002

The application to amend the defence was dismissed because the alleged misrepresentation had no real prospect of success: documentary evidence showed Deloitte were appointed by the company, not the Inland Revenue, so they lacked authority to make binding representations on behalf of the Revenue; permitting a last‑minute amendment at Day 3 would cause undue prejudice and require adjournment. The defendant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
21 Jul 2004

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEUNG LUEN KWAN AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHEUNG LUEN KWAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3385/2002

The court found D2 did not place a sufficient degree of trust and confidence in D1 regarding his own financial affairs and the guarantee was readily explicable by their commercial relationship and mutual financial interests; therefore the Class 2(B) presumption of undue influence did not arise and the guarantee was enforceable against D2, entitling the plaintiff to judgment.
23 Jun 2003

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK v. HUANG JINCAN

Citation

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK v. HUANG JINCAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2268/2002

Defendant failed to produce credible, quantified evidence of undervalue or realistic alternative actions; the Bank had taken reasonable steps, relied on audit and legal advice and sold to the only practicable buyer at a commercially rational price; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for the Bank on the guaranty.
22 Feb 2001

AIG Finance (HK) Ltd. v. Derlan Ltd. and Others

Citation

AIG Finance (HK) Ltd. v. Derlan Ltd. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6146/2000

All three defendants are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the assessed damages of HK$1,001,767.07 as quantified by the plaintiff (including application of the Rule of 78 rebate and deduction of payments), with judgment interest from the date of judgment until payment and costs nisi awarded to the plaintiff.