3 Nov 2025
The court refused leave to appeal because the applicants failed to show an arguable error of law or that the Tribunal's factual and credibility findings were plainly wrong; the Tribunal's conclusions were supported by evidence and within its assessment of credibility, so s28(1) Cap.338 did not permit granting leave.
8 Jun 2022
The court allowed the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to pursue the oral guarantee and fraud/lifting the corporate veil claims except insofar as the pleadings attempted to treat the Loan Agreement or veil-lifting as creating a separate written guarantee or to assert enforceable security over the 2nd defendant’s property. The oral guarantee does not satisfy s.3 and s.5 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and is therefore unenforceable as creating security over land; accordingly the registration of the writ against the property is vacated. Certain paragraphs claiming a written guarantee…
7 Jul 2015
Leave to appeal refused because appellant failed to show the trial judge made a plainly wrong factual finding or that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success; the additional evidence was available before trial and would be unfair and inadmissible; accordingly no compelling reason to grant leave. Application to vary the interim costs order refused because respondent was overall successful and entitled to costs, including previously reserved costs.
24 Feb 2010
The Court of Appeal held that the Transfer Contract taken with the contemporaneous Deed of Waiver (a deed executed under seal) operated to release SHK from the claims asserted by the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and to transfer any interest SHK had to LPI, such that the 2nd plaintiff had assumed the relevant rights and liabilities and the 1st plaintiff (as nominator/through agency) was bound by the deed; accordingly the claims of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs were struck out, with liberty to apply to amend within 21 days, and costs were ordered nisi in favour of the defendant against the 1st and 2nd p…
15 Mar 2006
The trial judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence that a post-dated cheque was converted to a cash cheque in return for an oral personal guarantee by the 2nd Defendant that the 1st Defendant would perform the termination agreement; the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb that factual conclusion because it was not plainly wrong and dismissed the appeal.
17 Sept 2004
The judge accepted the Plaintiff's account that the 2nd Defendant requested and received a cash cheque and, under pressure and after telephone consultation with his partner, orally guaranteed that the 1st Defendant would perform the termination agreement; contemporaneous alteration of the agreement's signature page and surrounding conduct supported inferring an oral guarantee; accordingly the 2nd Defendant is bound as guarantor and the court granted a conditional indemnity declaration for the Labour Tribunal award upon proof of payment and an order nisi for costs.
5 Aug 2004
Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the 2nd–4th defendants gave an oral guarantee; material inconsistencies, unreliable witness testimony, absence or destruction of key documents and non-compliance with discovery rendered the claim unproved and liable to dismissal with indemnity costs.
17 Feb 2004
Judge preferred plaintiff's witnesses as truthful and the defendant as evasive; found on balance of probabilities that defendant orally guaranteed payment and signed the back of the cheques as evidence of that guarantee; accordingly defendant was liable for the amount of the dishonoured cheques.
2 Oct 2002
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment and granted unconditional leave to defend because there were genuine disputed facts and credibility issues about why the defendant's signatures appeared on the cheques (including a second affirmation explaining the circumstances), and because liability under s.28 depended on the same factual question of whether a personal guarantee was given, making summary disposal inappropriate.
15 Jun 2001
The court found the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged 1996 guarantee and the May/June 1998 agreements; only a sale contract for bus seats was proved and defendant had paid for nine sets leaving one set unpaid, so plaintiff entitled to judgment for the price of one set (US$5,282) with interest and costs on the District Court scale.