Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Margin calls

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

DEUTSCHE BANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT ALSO KNOWN AS DEUTSCHE BANK AG ACTING THROUGH ITS SINGAPORE BRANCH v. LAM YEE CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5308
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2072/2024

On the evidence the alleged oral representations were not made and conflicted with contemporaneous documents; Mr Lam’s guarantee is enforceable; Ms Chan did not prove actual undue influence and the 2nd mortgage is enforceable; the default interest (COF +10%) is not an unenforceable penalty.
16 Aug 2024

CHINA INDUSTRIAL SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL BROKERAGE LTD v. LOU YI

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2127
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1073/2021

The appeal is allowed and unconditional leave to defend is granted because the defendant demonstrated triable issues on construction (whether Clause 6 operates as a condition precedent to Clause 3) and on discharge (bad faith, negligence/connivance, and substantial variation/forbearance), and the cumulative factual matrix including related proceedings constitutes "some other reason" requiring trial; therefore the Master’s conditional payment‑into‑court order was set aside.
20 Jun 2019

POWER SECURITIES CO LTD (formerly known as JUN YANG SECURITIES CO LTD) v. BEST YEAR ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1591
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2851/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the Defendant failed the first Ladd v Marshall condition by not showing the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, and also failed to show the evidence would probably have had an important influence or raised a triable issue to resist summary judgment; accordingly leave is refused and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
30 Jul 2018

BONDS & SONS INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL29/2013

Court held plaintiffs failed to prove that Citibank or Ms Mak assumed legal responsibility to advise beyond clear contractual disclaimers; TIPs and contractual documents adequately disclosed the risks material to the ACs including MTM and margin risk; Mrs Chan was experienced and would in any event have entered the ACs so causation not established; alleged representation was non‑actionable opinion and not causal; guarantor termination had been suspended by agreement and appropriation was lawful; all claims dismissed with costs.
30 Jul 2018

SHINNING INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL28/2013

On the contractual and factual matrix the bank and its relationship manager did not assume a legal duty to advise beyond the explicit disclaimers in the MDA/RDS/TIPs; the disclosures were adequate as a matter of market practice and utility; no actionable or causative misrepresentation was made; the plaintiff’s causation case failed because the deceased principal was experienced and would have entered the trades regardless; guarantor termination was suspended and guarantees remained effective; claims dismissed.
25 Jan 2018

UOB KAY HIAN FUTURES (HONG KONG) LTD v. LAI, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 95
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1946/2011

The court held the client authorised the disputed trades through her agent (the account executive), the plaintiff did not breach the contractual or tortious duties alleged, any requirement under clause 12.3 was waived by mutual assent in relation to the trades, HKFE rules did not apply to Singapore-executed trades by contract, and the 2002/2010 guarantee agreements were enforceable; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against both defendants for the debit balance and interest, and the defendant's counterclaim failed.
21 Nov 2014

UOB KAY HIAN FUTURES (HONG KONG) LTD v. LAI, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

UOB KAY HIAN FUTURES (HONG KONG) LTD v. LAI, LAWRENCE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1946/2011

The summons for specific discovery is dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with Order 24 rule 7 evidential requirements (no adequate affidavit establishing existence, possession, relevancy and necessity), compounded by procedural default (failure to file a reply affirmation and joint progress report), and even on the merits the 2010 Document and ad hoc Horn Applications rendered the sought document unnecessary for fair disposal.
11 Apr 2013

SHINE GRACE INVESTMENT LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHINE GRACE INVESTMENT LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL28/2008

The court granted leave to amend the Statement of Claim to include the disputed risk-related allegations (HTM, MTM, implied volatility) and most amendments concerning Mrs Anita Chan's medical condition because the additions were relevant to the real controversy and not shown to be bound to fail; however the court disallowed an amendment that sought to infer a discussion between Ms Hailey Mak and Dr Yau about Mrs Chan's health absent factual averments supporting a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality.
26 Feb 2013

KGI FUTURES (HONG KONG) LTD v. LI KAR HUEN CHRISTINE

Citation

KGI FUTURES (HONG KONG) LTD v. LI KAR HUEN CHRISTINE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA194/2010

The court held that the defendant was liable for the deficit because she breached the contractual margin obligations; the plaintiff lawfully exercised its contractual right to close out unfunded positions under the Standard Terms and Conditions and recover the resulting loss; the defendant's unproven assertions of duty and misrepresentation failed; and indemnity costs were awarded pursuant to the contractual indemnity clause.
16 Mar 2010

SHINE GRACE INVESTMENT LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND ANOTHER

Citation

SHINE GRACE INVESTMENT LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL28/2008

The court concluded that although the Defence contained material intended to assist and not to obfuscate, deleting the introductory paragraph 2 and extensive verbatim transcript extracts would promote a more linear, manageable pleading and assist forthcoming discovery and interlocutory matters; accordingly the court ordered deletion of paragraph 2, deletion of specified transcript extracts and schedules, leave to amend the Defence within 21 days to replead relevant substance within responsive paragraphs, consequential amendment rights for the plaintiff, and costs directions.