Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Continuing guarantee

Legal area

Court

11 Feb 2021

BANK OF INDIA v. GIMAJASA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1956/2017

Plaintiff's pleaded claim related solely to advances made after the guarantor had validly terminated his guarantee; the guarantee was properly construed as making the guarantor's liability conditional on a written demand and no valid demand was served prior to termination; the guarantor's correspondence did not amount to clear waiver or estoppel; accordingly the plaintiff's claim against the 4th defendant fails and is dismissed.
24 Oct 2018

SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. SUNBO (H. K.) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1288
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4347/2015

Defendants failed to prove any vitiating factor on a balance of probabilities; documentary evidence and credible witness evidence established that facility letters and guarantees were provided and explained and that the guarantees were continuing in scope; rescission of specific revolving facilities did not discharge the continuing guarantees; accordingly the guarantees are enforceable and defendants are jointly and severally liable for the pleaded sums.
17 Sept 2013

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD (INCORPORATED IN LIBERIA)

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD (INCORPORATED IN LIBERIA)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV239/2012

The guarantee's express wording, read in its commercial context, created a continuing and unlimited obligation covering additional and future facilities (Clause 1, Clause 6(v), Clause 23 and blank Part 3); therefore Days Impex (Liberia) had no real prospect of a defence confined to the initial facility letter and summary judgment was properly entered; costs are payable on the indemnity basis under the guarantee.
17 Sept 2013

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYARAM NANIK

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYARAM NANIK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV240/2012

The guarantee's clear and wide terms, including express provisions that it is continuing and covers additional or new facilities (notably Clause 6(v) and the definition of facility), demonstrated that it extended to subsequent and superseding facilities; there was no evidence to show the parties intended a narrower scope, so summary judgment was properly entered and costs awarded on the indemnity basis where contractually provided.
3 Jun 2013

CITIBANK N.A. v. DAYARAM NANIK AND ANOTHER

Citation

CITIBANK N.A. v. DAYARAM NANIK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2011

On the contemporaneous documents and the wording of the continuing guarantees the court found no arguable defence: the guarantees, by their express language and by the defendants' acknowledgements of subsequent supplemental facility letters, extended to advances under the 2001 facility letter and subsequent facility letters; therefore both defendants are liable. On quantum the SLGS outstanding of HK$9.2m was correctly calculated; two US dollar items were substantiated and the overdraft figure was not substantiated in the affirmation and thus must be disregarded absent a proper certificate und…
16 Oct 2012

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYARAM NANIK

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYARAM NANIK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA82/2012

The Guarantees were continuing and, by their terms and the contemporaneous acknowledgements and conduct (including clause 6 and clause 5), covered facilities granted after the initial facility letter; defendants failed to adduce credible evidence of a triable defence on the pleaded grounds, so summary judgment was properly entered for the Bank and ND remains liable.
16 Oct 2012

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD (Incorporated in Liberia)

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD (Incorporated in Liberia)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA56/2012

The Guarantee was a continuing guarantee covering all facilities granted to the Debtor including subsequent facility letters; the defendants failed to produce credible evidence of a triable defence or to particularise facts supporting their pleaded conditions precedent; summary judgment was therefore correctly entered for the Bank.
10 Mar 2010

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG kONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG kONG) LTD v. SWEETMART GARMENT WORKS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1807/2005

The Guarantee was a continuing/all‑monies guarantee covering the ongoing banker/customer relationship; although the failure to procure release of the Belfran Road mortgage amounted to a material variation in substance, the Guarantee contained express provisions (notably clauses 5(a),(b) and (d)) that allowed the bank to vary credit, grant indulgences and deal with securities and thereby preserved the guarantor's liability; accordingly Holme v Brunskill did not discharge the 2nd defendant and judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
16 Apr 2008

ORIX ASIA LTD v. WONG CHI MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

ORIX ASIA LTD v. WONG CHI MING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5049/2007

Summary judgment was appropriate because the written guarantee contained clear express terms making defendants primary obligors and permitting direct demands without prior enforcement against the company; the alleged oral representation was either untrue or not reasonably relied upon and cannot vary the written guarantee under the parol evidence rule; resignation and value of machines do not raise triable issues.
23 Nov 2005

NEXT MAGAZINE ADVERTISING LTD v. AMERICA ADVERTISING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NEXT MAGAZINE ADVERTISING LTD v. AMERICA ADVERTISING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4280/2004

Because the guarantees concerned divisible consideration the guarantor could revoke future liability, but revocation is effective only upon actual receipt by the creditor; the 3rd Defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the notices reached the Plaintiffs' mailing centre, so his revocation did not take effect and judgment was entered for the Plaintiffs.