Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Surety obligations

  • 4 Apr 2005

    PAN GLOBAL LTD v. SILVER TECH INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    PAN GLOBAL LTD v. SILVER TECH INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2429/2003

    The appeal was dismissed because the 3rd Defendant demonstrated a properly arguable point—namely the lawful scope and effect of clause 5.7.1 of the guarantee in circumstances where loan proceeds may have been diverted—that raises a real prospect of success on the merits sufficient to support the Master's order setting aside the default judgment; the legal question as to whether the indemnity clause covers payments procured by fraud is not appropriate for summary determination.

  • 26 May 1986

    THE QUEEN v. KEUNG CAM YUEN ALIAS KEUNG KAM CHUEN

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. KEUNG CAM YUEN ALIAS KEUNG KAM CHUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC527/1985

    The Court held that the sureties failed to discharge the heavy burden of showing lack of culpability or undue hardship and, given the seriousness of the surety obligation and the fact cash deposits were deliberately made, it was not fair and just to reduce the sums; accordingly the full cash deposits of $250,000 by each surety were forfeited.

  • 22 Oct 1980

    THE QUEEN v. KWAN FAT-KAI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. KWAN FAT-KAI AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC195/1980

    The court held that forfeiture is a discretionary remedy which should not be imposed in the absence of adequate notice to the surety; applying s29(2) Cap.221 as a model for alternative service, the court refused forfeiture where the notice was not left with an appropriate household member or otherwise properly served (Case No.195) but ordered forfeiture where the notice was left with a person represented to be the surety's brother at the surety's last known address (Case No.264).