23 Dec 2008
Service on the defendant company at its registered office was valid and the default judgment was regularly obtained; the defendant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the merits or sufficient evidence of collusion to set aside the judgment; appeal dismissed.
4 Jun 2008
The court found the Loan Agreement and Debenture were not validly authorised or enforceable against Moulin because the purported board approval was not properly notified and Active Base was put on inquiry; apparent authority, due execution and Turquand protections did not apply. Further, even if otherwise, the Debenture is invalid under section 267 as not within the statutory exception. Consequently the liquidators' rejection of the proof of debt was upheld.
28 Jan 2008
Summary judgment was appropriate in part because the Court of Appeal's determination that Lau was not and never was a director meant his purported 2002 sale and assignment on behalf of Billion Top were void ab initio; therefore Wylie obtained no legal title and could not rely on bona fide purchaser or Turquand protections, and there was no basis to stay the present summary application pending the imminent winding‑up hearing of the 1st defendant.
4 Jul 2003
Because Lockia failed to produce, at the time the action was commenced, a valid board resolution authorizing NG & Lam to demand the title deeds and because there were genuine, material and contemporaneous doubts about the validity of FBL's appointment as director, CLW's qualified refusal to release the deeds was justified and not conversion; accordingly the claim was bound to fail and the strike out was proper.
6 Jun 2002
Defendants, acting for the mortgagee, owed a duty to verify the mortgagor's title and the authority of the vendor's signatory before advising release of mortgage monies; they breached that duty by failing to verify authority or properly investigate title, the breach caused the plaintiff's loss, and the defendants are liable for the full loss within the scope of their undertaking; damages quantified by the court accordingly.
11 Nov 1998
The appeal is dismissed because the board resolution was found to be a forgery and therefore a nullity; the Turquand rule cannot validate a forged document, and under the company's articles a single director did not have authority to affix the seal, so summary judgment was properly refused.
21 Jan 1998
Vendor's refusal to produce the company's articles of association, which formed part of the vendor's title, prevented the purchasers from verifying whether a single director could validly execute the assignment; that refusal disabled the vendor from relying on the presumption under s.23 CPO and Turquand's rule was not a sufficient answer; the purchasers' reservation of rights to raise further requisitions within seven working days was effective; accordingly the vendor's purported forfeiture on 23 April was premature and amounted to wrongful repudiation, entitling the purchasers to repayment o…
11 Nov 1992
Vendor failed to satisfactorily answer a substantive requisition that raised a real prospect the 12 Sept 1984 assignment could be set aside; although the due execution point was covered by s.23 and the Turquand rule and had been waived, the vendor's refusal to dispel the risk of set‑aside justified the purchaser terminating the contract and recovering the initial deposit and obtaining the declaration as to the stakeholder deposit.