Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of mandate

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2024

WINRISE ASIA LTD v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2732
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2023

The court found there were substantial and triable issues of fact and law as to whether Ms Zhan was authorised to operate the IDEAL platform singly and effect the five payments, and as to the availability and applicability of multiple defences (estoppel, contractual estoppel, and indemnity). Those issues could not be resolved summarily, so summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to DBS to defend was granted; costs of the summons ordered in the cause.
19 Sept 2013

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. LAU AND CHENG INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHONG HING BANK LTD v. LAU AND CHENG INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1574/2009

Judge held the proposed amendments (including unjust enrichment paragraphs) were necessary to determine the real question in controversy and were not bound to fail on their face; Rule 8(1A) does not impose an additional 'exceptional circumstances' threshold and leave to amend should be granted before trial unless the new claim plainly fails; accordingly leave to amend was granted and consequential directions and costs order nisi were made.
13 Jun 2013

RE NANIK DAYARAM

Citation

RE NANIK DAYARAM<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7651/2011

The court rejected the breach of mandate defence because the 1994 resolutions governed trade accounts and were not displaced by the 1999 mandate which applied to specified banking accounts; the company had held out Pitty Kwok as a single signatory so apparent authority/estoppel bound the company; even if transactions were ultra vires the company the guarantor remained liable; realizations and set-off notwithstanding, the debtor admitted an amount remained due and therefore a bankruptcy order was appropriate.
18 Jul 2005

WYCOMBE INVESTMENT LTD v. EDWIN LEONG SIU HUNG

Citation

WYCOMBE INVESTMENT LTD v. EDWIN LEONG SIU HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL66/2004

Court found Wycombe was the correct plaintiff but the oral contract for the fund was with Tai Hung Fai Enterprises Ltd; there was no objective evidence that Leong assumed personal responsibility such as would displace limited liability, so Leong was not personally liable and the action must be dismissed. The court additionally found that, had Leong been held personally liable, his trading in late 1991 amounted to breach of the minimum standard of care for a fund manager (reckless over‑exposure), but the plaintiff's blanket claim for return of US$2,000,000 with compound interest could not be s…
14 Apr 2000

BANK OF CHINA v. JIAN SING BANK LTD.and XINYUAN TRADING CO. LTD. (Third Party)

Citation

BANK OF CHINA v. JIAN SING BANK LTD.and XINYUAN TRADING CO. LTD. (Third Party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL82/1999

JSB's swift message and written Advice of Acceptance of 23 July 1998 amounted to an acceptance/representation addressed to BOC as a negotiating/discounting bank which estopped JSB from denying acceptance despite absence of signature on the bill; JSB was therefore liable to BOC for US$1,658,067.80 and, having incurred that liability, JSB is entitled to be indemnified by its customer Xinyuan under the contractual indemnity and terms accepted by Xinyuan.
18 Dec 1997

LEAN TYE HIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEAN TYE HIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6101/1991

Judge rejected the plaintiff's account, accepted the Bank's contemporaneous records (including signed June 1990 Confirmations and the July 1990 telex), preferred the handwriting expert for the Bank and the Bank officer's evidence, and found both that the January 1990 releases were authorised by the plaintiff and that the sister gave oral authority; accordingly the Bank lawfully released the shares and the plaintiff's claim failed.
3 Apr 1997

DAO HENG BANK LTD. v. CHAN CHIU CHEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAO HENG BANK LTD. v. CHAN CHIU CHEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6653/1996

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the default judgment because the 2nd Defendant demonstrated a real prospect of success based on evidence of a course of dealing and/or the parties' understanding of the mandate requiring two signatures, and because the overall circumstances including correspondence with solicitors and the procedural oversight justified a trial; consequently merits outweighed procedural defects per established authorities, requiring the default judgment and related charging and garnishee orders to be set aside and the matter remitted to normal interlocutory course.
26 Nov 1980

SUKIT PACHIMSAWAT AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION

Citation

SUKIT PACHIMSAWAT AND ANOTHER v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA410/1978

On the evidence the court found the transfer and withdrawal documents were forged but, weighing credibility, conduct and circumstantial evidence, concluded the plaintiffs' account was not truthful and that defendant had proved the plaintiffs' complicity to the civil standard; claim dismissed and judgment for defendant.