Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Illegality of loans

  • 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 Oct 1986

    NEW JAPAN SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD. v. LIM YIONG LIN

    Citation
    NEW JAPAN SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL (H.K.) LTD. v. LIM YIONG LIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA704/1984

    The court found the first five rollovers amounted to new loans but involved the addition of accrued unpaid interest to principal and charging interest on that sum, which constituted compound interest illegal under s22 and therefore those loans were unenforceable; the sixth loan (not rolled over) was enforceable because the Court exercised its discretion under s18(3) in favour of the plaintiff; separately, the margin loans were exempt under Part II para 5 of the First Schedule because they were made in the ordinary course of the plaintiff's stockbroking business, so judgment was entered for th…