Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

All‑monies guarantee

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2026

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LTD (HONG KONG BRANCH) v. TOTAL ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 616
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA513/2023

The claimed oral representations and collateral agreement flatly contradict the clear unlimited terms of the written Guarantees, are unsupported by contemporaneous or corroborating evidence, are inherently improbable given the commercial context and the defendants\' experience, and therefore disclose no bona fide triable issue; summary judgment and striking out the counterclaim are justified.
11 May 2012

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEE YUK LAN

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEE YUK LAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB15656/2009

The petitions were dismissed because the petitioner failed to comply with r.46(2): after unsuccessful attempts at last‑known Hong Kong addresses it knew of related PRC addresses and the involvement of PRC guarantors and liquidators and did not take reasonable, simple steps (letters, faxes, telephone calls or enquiries with liquidators) to bring the Statutory Demands to the debtors' attention; the failure to show those steps would not have succeeded warranted dismissal with costs.
5 Feb 2009

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. PERFECTA DYEING, PRINTING & WEAVING WORKS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. PERFECTA DYEING, PRINTING & WEAVING WORKS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA956/2008

There were no triable issues: the Defendants never challenged the quantum prior to the hearing and the bank's officer's sworn calculation is conclusive absent manifest error; the 2 May 2008 email unambiguously deferred only the first instalment and the bank retained an overriding right to demand repayment under the On Demand clause, justifying acceleration when the second instalment was not paid; the Deed of Guarantee remained in force and had not been validly discharged, so summary judgment against the principal and guarantors was correctly entered and must be affirmed.
25 Oct 2006

LAU CHI KAN MICHAEL v. PANG CHING CHEUNG

Citation

LAU CHI KAN MICHAEL v. PANG CHING CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2781/2004

On the evidence the defendant remained in control of Kingfish through the critical period and the plaintiff proved advances to Kingfish up to 4/8 July 2004; the sale proceeds of HK$1,000,000 and the established receivable balance from Long Art of HK$2,316,389.08 were correctly applied, leaving a net judgment debt of HK$2,158,410.14; the defendant failed to rebut the plaintiff's documentary evidence or call evidence on key points (including responsibility for returned goods), so the plaintiff's quantification stands and the defendant is liable under the guarantee.

Hong Kong Case Law

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK LTD (HONG KONG BRANCH) v. TOTAL ENTERPRISE LTD AND OTHERS

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LEE YUK LAN

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. PERFECTA DYEING, PRINTING & WEAVING WORKS LTD AND OTHERS

LAU CHI KAN MICHAEL v. PANG CHING CHEUNG