Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quincecare duty

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2025

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD v. SETO MING WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCA 91
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV181/2024

Because the plaintiff is a BVI company with no assets in Hong Kong, there is no reciprocal enforcement arrangement with the BVI and the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of difficulty or expense in enforcing an adverse costs order abroad, and because countervailing factors were insufficient to displace the presumption, the Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of the appeal in the sum of HKD 700,000 and stayed the appeal until payment.
9 Apr 2024

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD v. SETO MING WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 984
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1976/2016

Court found CLC breached duty by opening and operating the account without a compliant up-to-date COI (deficient due diligence) but that breach did not causally produce the plaintiff’s loss. The Quincecare duty and dishonest assistance were not made out because the facts known to CLC did not, on balance, present a serious or real possibility of misappropriation that would have required CLC to refuse execution. Causation and remoteness arguments favoured defendants (Wong could have transferred from Fulbright); illegality defence was not available on pleaded facts; contributory misconduct by th…
6 Feb 2023

PT ASURANSI TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA TBK v. CITIBANK N.A.

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 3
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV11/2022

The Court held that unauthorised debits were nullities and the correct remedy was reconstitution of the account producing a debt payable on demand; the 1998 closure did not discharge the reconstituted debt and therefore time for limitation ran from the 2006 demand, so the claim was not statute‑barred; contributory negligence is not a defence to the debt claim.
19 Aug 2022

PT ASURANSI TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA TBK (formerly known as PT PRATAMA INDONESIA) v. CITIBANK N.A.

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1202
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV548/2018

Leave to appeal was granted because the two questions are arguable, of general importance to the banking industry and customers, and not settled by the CA Judgment; the CA had held that the banker-customer relationship can be terminated by unilateral act and that the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued on account closure making the claim time-barred, and that contributory negligence is available where contractual and tortious duties coexist.
16 Jul 2021

GORGEOUS INVESTMENT GROUP HOLDING CO, LTD v. INDUSTRIAL BANK CO, LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1966
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA356/2021

Plaintiff failed to show a serious issue to be tried on its core allegations of fraud, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and breach of Quincecare duty because the evidence was insufficient and inconsistent; contractual terms and contemporaneous documents and conduct (including independent legal advice and express non-monitoring clauses) undermined plaintiff's case; the balance of convenience favoured defendants because the bank faced real risk of irrecoverable loss and plaintiff offered no adequate cross-undertaking; the Disposal was already completed making mandatory relief unnecessary. Accor…
29 Jul 2019

THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. SMI HOLDINGS GROUP LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMI CORPORATION LTD)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1948
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW108/2019

The court held that the Bank had demonstrated sufficient connection to Hong Kong and locus to present the petition; the Company failed to prove a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds regarding countermand of the cheque and failed to show that the Bank was put on inquiry such that a Quincecare breach arose; accordingly the petition should succeed and a winding-up order would be made subject only to a short agreed adjournment.
12 Oct 2018

PT TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA v. CITIBANK N.A.

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2233
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL1/2007

Court found on the facts the bank was put on inquiry by the time of the third disputed payment because of the combination of indicia (pattern of payments, lack of apparent business connection, payments to signatories and HAM arrangement) and therefore breached its duty of care; however the plaintiff's claims were time-barred because limitation accrued prior to commencement and s.26 did not assist the plaintiff as the special rules of attribution did not apply to displace the company's knowledge and there was no deliberate concealment by the defendant under s.26(3); accordingly the action was…

Hong Kong Case Law

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD v. SETO MING WAI AND ANOTHER

EXCEL COURAGE HOLDINGS LTD v. SETO MING WAI AND ANOTHER

PT ASURANSI TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA TBK v. CITIBANK N.A.

PT ASURANSI TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA TBK (formerly known as PT PRATAMA INDONESIA) v. CITIBANK N.A.

GORGEOUS INVESTMENT GROUP HOLDING CO, LTD v. INDUSTRIAL BANK CO, LTD AND OTHERS

THE HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION v. SMI HOLDINGS GROUP LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SMI CORPORATION LTD)

PT TUGU PRATAMA INDONESIA v. CITIBANK N.A.