Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Security

  • 24 Sept 2010

    MAN SUM GARMENT TEXTILES (GROUP) MFG. CO., LTD v. CHOW MING CHEUNG

    Citation
    MAN SUM GARMENT TEXTILES (GROUP) MFG. CO., LTD v. CHOW MING CHEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2014/2008

    On the facts the court found the $1,320,000 comprised capital contributions toward an agreed $2,800,000 price for a 10% interest in FH and MF (including monthly salary deductions) rather than loans; therefore the Defendant had no valid equitable set-off against the Plaintiffs' loan claims and judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs with interest; the Defendant's counterclaims were dismissed.

  • 19 Nov 2003

    WILLIAM WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH

    Citation
    WILLIAM WANG v. BANK OF CHINA, SINGAPORE BRANCH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD23/2003

    The setting-aside applications were dismissed because the illegality challenge was speculative and unsupported by evidence and, in any event, continuation of running ACU facilities and the operation of s.69A rendered the contested indebtedness lawful; the undue influence claim lacked substance because the bank had no actual or constructive notice and the debtor was not shown to be the bank's agent; the Indonesian land was third-party property and not a security of the guarantors for BR r.48(5)(c) purposes; discovery was rightly refused as a fishing expedition.

  • 15 Apr 2002

    RE TSANG WAI CHE

    Citation
    RE TSANG WAI CHE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB12990/2001

    Given the judgment debt and statutory demand, the affidavit of continuing indebtedness, the debtor's indication that he would not contest the petition, and the inadequacy of the charged property's value due to prior charges, the court was justified in making a bankruptcy order against the debtor and awarding costs to the petitioner.

  • 28 Nov 2001

    CHENG WAI KEI v. COMMERZBANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT

    Citation
    CHENG WAI KEI v. COMMERZBANK AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD25/2001

    Rule 44(5) and Rule 48(5)(c) apply only to security over the property of the person against whom the statutory demand is made; securities over third parties' property (Philco, Winful) need not be stated in the statutory demand and cannot be credited against the guarantor; the applicant's equity argument to treat third‑party securities as his own fails and the application out of time is refused; the statutory demand stands and the setting aside application is dismissed.

  • 17 May 2001

    RE IP LAI FAN

    Citation
    RE IP LAI FAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD10/2000

    Application dismissed because the charged properties were not the applicant's and thus did not engage r.48(5)(c); alternatively applicant failed to produce any credible valuation evidence showing the securities equalled or exceeded her debt; the application was also delayed and the proposed appeal was belated and insufficient to justify adjournment.

  • 8 Jan 2001

    Re IP LAM ON

    Citation
    Re IP LAM ON
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCSD11/2000

    Adjournment refused as undue delay and prejudice to creditor; statutory demand not set aside because the charged properties are third‑party securities not requiring specification under Rule 44(5), the applicant failed to prove the securities equalled or exceeded the debt on the evidence before the court, and the alleged agreement not to enforce lacked consideration and an arguable defence, therefore creditor entitled to proceed to bankruptcy petition.

  • 31 May 2000

    PRAMOD VICTOR SIMON AND OTHERS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HERO II" (PANAMANIAN FLAG)

    Citation
    PRAMOD VICTOR SIMON AND OTHERS v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "HERO II" (PANAMANIAN FLAG)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAJ131/2000

    Where plaintiffs had settled and the caveator resisted withdrawal of a caveat while seeking additional security, the court exercised its power under Order 75, rule 13(3)(b) to order immediate release of the vessel and under Order 75, rule 14(2) to order the caveator to pay the plaintiffs' costs, assessed summarily at $5,000.