Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of assignment

Legal area

Court

20 May 2016

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD

Citation

GLOBAL BRIDGE ASSETS LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI FINANCIAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1701/2014

The plaintiffs failed to attend the hearing and produced no evidence to prove the alleged assignment or notice; the defendant's uncontradicted evidence established there was no assignment or notice; allowing the action to continue without payment of prior costs would be an abuse of process and unjust to the defendant, therefore the statement of claim must be struck out and the action dismissed and Chin joined for costs purposes.
27 Nov 2015

CHINA GOLD FINANCE LTD v. CIL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA GOLD FINANCE LTD v. CIL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV11/2015

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual findings that the 15 September 2005 Agreement was a genuine assignment of the entire HK$40m loan (including interest) to HGRED as part of consideration for services, the plaintiff failed to prove cancellation, the discrepancy in stated RMB amount was plausibly explained, Clause 13.2 permitted assignment by the lender (notice sufficing), the nine documents handed over satisfied Clause 6 under PRC law (which imposes no prescribed form for proof documents), and there was no basis for appellate re-evaluation of the primary judge's credibility findings; c…
6 May 2015

HANG SENG BANK LTD v. GAINTEX GARMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

HANG SENG BANK LTD v. GAINTEX GARMENT COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1789/2011

The Factoring Agreement effected an equitable assignment of Seven Seas' debts to the Bank which vested the debts in the Bank; adequate notice was given and, in the absence of any defence by Gaintex, the Bank was entitled to judgment for the assigned sums together with interest and costs.
19 Dec 2014

CHINA GOLD FINANCE LTD v. CIL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA GOLD FINANCE LTD v. CIL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2900/2001

The court held the 1st Transfer Agreement effected a valid assignment of the entire loan because (a) the 9 documentary copies delivered to HGRED constituted sufficient 'proof of loan' under Clause 6 and were delivered prior to execution, (b) Clause 13 of the Loan Agreement does not require prior notice by the assignor and an assignment is effective as against the borrower upon notice (notice may be given by assignee), (c) plaintiff was estopped by express contractual warranties in the 1st Transfer Agreement from disputing authority, and (d) plaintiff failed to prove cancellation or that non‑p…
9 Nov 2012

FASTWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD v. ASIABOND CO LTD

Citation

FASTWAY TECHNOLOGY LTD v. ASIABOND CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3442/2011

Plaintiff entitled to pre-judgment interest at 8% per annum from the date the cause of action arose (expiry of the pre-action letter: 7 days from 11 Feb 2011) until the date of judgment because the assignment and notice were effective, the defendant unreasonably refused to give consent/indemnity for the cheque presentation and is estopped from challenging the assignment after consenting to judgment on admission; costs ordered nisi in favour of plaintiff for the action and the interest issue.
25 Sept 2012

CHINA GOLD FINANCE LTD v. CIL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA GOLD FINANCE LTD v. CIL HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2900/2001

Leave granted to both parties to call one PRC law expert because the validity of the first transfer agreement (pleaded in defence) requires interpretation of PRC law and is relevant to the plaintiff's claim; the scope of expert opinion is confined to the live issues as framed by the defendants' proposed formulation, expanded to cover consequences of non-performance; the plaintiff's proposed issue on notice by the assignee was excluded as not a live issue and estopped by the prevention principle.
28 Aug 2009

IFS CAPITAL LTD v. HUNG KIN LAM of CHI TAT

Citation

IFS CAPITAL LTD v. HUNG KIN LAM of CHI TAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1081/2007

The court held the assignment and notices were valid, the plaintiff's due diligence was adequate, and the defendants by their unambiguous representations (delivery acknowledgements, confirmatory emails and meetings) were estopped from denying they were purchasers or that goods were received; therefore the innocent assignee could recover on the assigned invoices despite fraud by the assignor; non est factum and common mistake did not avail the defendants.
28 Aug 2009

IFS CAPITAL LTD v. HUNG KIN LAM of CHI TAT ENTERPRISE CO (a firm) AND OTHERS

Citation

IFS CAPITAL LTD v. HUNG KIN LAM of CHI TAT ENTERPRISE CO (a firm) AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1080/2007

The court held the assignment to the Plaintiff was valid under Singapore law, the Plaintiff had satisfied due diligence, and the Defendants by clear, unambiguous representations (delivery notes, email confirmations and conduct at meetings) were estopped from denying they were purchasers who received the goods; the assignor's fraud and arguments of mistake/agency did not defeat the Plaintiff's rights as innocent assignee; judgment entered for Plaintiff on the claimed sums with interest and costs.
13 Feb 2007

TICSOUND (MUSIC) LTD v. FAN WONG & TSO (a firm)

Citation

TICSOUND (MUSIC) LTD v. FAN WONG & TSO (a firm)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2006

The Court dismissed the appeals: Master Hui correctly assessed damages to put the plaintiffs in the position they would have been in but for the defendants' breach of solicitor undertakings; the plaintiffs were not obliged to mitigate by raising funds they could not obtain; the notices of assignment were irrelevant and properly excluded where not pleaded; the additional daily sum was a quantifiable component of continuing loss and not objectionable when read with the plaintiffs' undertaking; sub-mortgages were not rendered illusory and retained statutory protection.
16 Oct 2006

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV26/2006

The Court of Appeal held the guarantees were properly within the subject matter of the 2nd SPA and the Assignment as a matter of construction; the Assignment validly transferred the guarantees to UFC under section 9 LARCO; the guarantees were continuing securities and assignable notwithstanding prior enforcement steps by the bank; the defendants' pleaded defences (including champerty, compromise, lack of notice, illegality, conspiracy and reliance on Hughes) were not supported by particulars or evidence and did not raise triable issues. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and summary judgment…