Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantum of debt

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2018

SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. SUNBO (H. K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1288
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4347/2015

Defendants failed to prove any vitiating factor on a balance of probabilities; documentary evidence and credible witness evidence established that facility letters and guarantees were provided and explained and that the guarantees were continuing in scope; rescission of specific revolving facilities did not discharge the continuing guarantees; accordingly the guarantees are enforceable and defendants are jointly and severally liable for the pleaded sums.
29 Oct 2010

MARTIJN KUENEN v. JOHN ROGER NEKVAPIL

Citation

MARTIJN KUENEN v. JOHN ROGER NEKVAPIL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2023/2009

The court assessed the factual matrix and evidence to determine the character of the transfers, noting that the 12 February 2007 transmission included a US$20,000 sum earmarked for company start‑up while the balance was treated as a loan advanced to the defendant; liability turns on that factual finding and proof of the sums advanced.
12 Jul 2007

SECURITY ALLIANCE LTD v. KHAN MOHAMED FAROUK

Citation

SECURITY ALLIANCE LTD v. KHAN MOHAMED FAROUK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA619/2006

The court found the debt of HK$1,524,700 established and enforceable; the 13 October 2005 document effected only a partial waiver of HK$634,300 (gratuity applied) and did not waive the entire circa HK$2.1m debt; the defendant's unpleaded ‘package’ and extrinsic evidence were rejected; judgment awarded to the plaintiff for HK$1,524,700 with interest and costs.
27 May 2004

UNION BANK OF HONG KONG LTD v. UNITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD & OTHERS

Citation

UNION BANK OF HONG KONG LTD v. UNITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4040/1999

The Court found on credibility and documentary evidence that the defendants knew they were signing personal guarantees and that the Bank was authorized to open and operate a securities margin account and to debit funds for settlement of the placing shares; issue estoppel did not bar litigation on the placing shares/margin account as it would be contrary to justice; accordingly the Bank was entitled to judgment against specified defendants for the stated sums and the counterclaims were dismissed.
27 May 2004

UNION BANK OF HONG KONG LTD v. UNITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD & OTHERS

Citation

UNION BANK OF HONG KONG LTD v. UNITED CHINA INTERNATIONAL LTD & OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12924/1997

The Court found on credibility and documentary evidence that the guarantees and security documents were validly executed and that the Company had authorised a margin account and applied for/received the placing shares; accordingly the Bank was entitled to recover the sums claimed from the defendants and chargees; issue estoppel was disapplied because its application would be contrary to justice in the circumstances.
27 May 2004

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LIU SIK WING AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. LIU SIK WING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2052/2003

The Court rejected the belated oral agreement defences as unbelievable and inadmissible on the summary procedure; held that the 3rd Defendant has arguable defences based on mental incapacity and undue influence so summary judgment cannot be entered against her; found there is a substantial principal debt owing by the 1st and 2nd Defendants and granted partial judgment against them while giving them unconditional leave to defend the remainder; pre‑August 2001 interest must be included in the partial judgment calculation.
23 Nov 2000

Re Widecorp Development Ltd.

Citation

Re Widecorp Development Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW387/2000

The application for stay and for adjournment were refused and the winding-up order granted because although there was a not-frivolous dispute about the sale price and a pending action, that dispute did not extinguish the debt and the Company had no demonstrated financial ability to meet even the undisputed portion; therefore a dispute as to quantum was insufficient to prevent winding up.
12 Oct 2000

CHOW TAI FOOK JEWELLERY CO. LTD. v. SHUN KAI BULLION CO. LTD.

Citation

CHOW TAI FOOK JEWELLERY CO. LTD. v. SHUN KAI BULLION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6992/1998

The court applied the slip rule to correct an omission in its earlier written judgment because the formal order had not been drawn or entered; accordingly the appeal was allowed, the Master's order set aside and judgment entered for the plaintiff on liability; the Legal Charge registration issue was treated as not in dispute, the 11% rate was construed as the fixed rate included in each instalment while higher rates could be charged on overdue instalments, and quantum was left for detailed accounting or agreement between solicitors.
25 Sept 1985

PERFECT MARBLE COMPANY LIMITED v. TAO YUN COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

PERFECT MARBLE COMPANY LIMITED v. TAO YUN COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6851/1984

Defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving an agreed completion date and liquidated damages; silence and non‑return of a duplicate letter did not establish acceptance; parts of the delay were not the plaintiff's fault; therefore plaintiff entitled to the unpaid contract balance plus interest and costs.