24 Jun 2019
The debtor produced no credible, admissible evidence to show a bona fide dispute as to the debt; the interest rate and lender status did not legally defeat the petition; accordingly a bankruptcy order was properly made.
14 Dec 2007
The judge's factual findings that the HK$38.76 million was advanced as a loan, that the 1st and 3rd defendants acted together and used the 5th defendant as the vehicle to receive the funds, and that the defendants failed to establish a joint venture or otherwise defeat repayment, were lawful and entitled to be upheld; therefore the appeals fail and the judgment for the plaintiffs should be upheld.
14 Dec 2007
The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the HK$38.76 million was advanced as a loan, that the first and third defendants acted together to obtain the loan and used the fifth defendant as the vehicle to receive the funds, and therefore judgment for repayment with interest was payable by the first, third and fifth defendants; the appeals were dismissed.
18 Oct 1991
On the established facts the broker validly exercised contractual rights under the Customer Trading Agreement to demand margin and to liquidate when demand was not met; the defendant authorised the 19 October transactions; the pooling/fungibility principle applies and there was no pleaded or proven insufficiency of the pool so burden lay on defendant to prove depletion; the sale to Mr. Li at a negotiated 10% discount on London closing prices was commercially reasonable and amounted to market price in the circumstances; the advances were credit incidental to stockbroking and not regulated mone…
7 Jan 1976
Plaintiffs were not money-lenders under s.6(c) because lending was incidental to their stockbroking business; the defendant did not give unequivocal, price-independent instructions to sell all shares, therefore plaintiffs did not breach any obligation and are entitled to recover the balance claimed; the counterclaim fails.