13 Oct 2016
Application for stay dismissed because the defendant failed to show an arguable appeal or produce evidence to substantiate the asserted serious deleterious effect; breaches of repealed s47A did not absolve the defendant of liability to repay and the defendant's factual allegations were found not credible.
13 Nov 2012
Credibility findings: the plaintiff's witnesses were credible and explained documentary gaps; the defendant was evasive and failed to prove repayment by the nine cheques or that the loans fell within Cap 163; the loans were personal interest‑free advances outside ordinary money‑lending business and, even if Cap 163 arguably applied, the court exercised its s18 discretion in the plaintiff's favor; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for the outstanding principal and counterclaim dismissed.
14 Oct 1999
The trial judge's factual findings fixed the repayment date at 20 December 1994 and the agreed repayable sum produced an effective annual interest rate of 62.39%, which exceeds 60% under s24 Cap.163; therefore the loan agreement is unenforceable and the appeal is dismissed.
9 Jun 1999
Loans 2 and 3 were illegal and unenforceable under s.22(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance at the time the statutory demand was served, so there was no indebtedness under those loans for the purposes of the statutory demand; loan 1 was covered by the creditor's security such that on the creditor's own valuation no balance remained; the court declined to exercise its discretion under s.22(2) at this interlocutory forum and stage because that requires fuller evidence and consideration; consequently the statutory demand was set aside with costs.
2 Oct 1986
First five rolled-over loans, though treated as fresh advances, incorporated accrued unpaid interest added to principal and thus operated as compound interest contrary to s22(a) and were illegal and unenforceable; the sixth loan was not rolled over and, despite plaintiff's failure to comply with s18 formalities, the court exercised its discretion under s18(3) in favour of the plaintiff and granted judgment for that loan; margin account advances were made in the ordinary course of the plaintiff's stockbroking business and were exempt under First Schedule Part II para 5, so judgment was entered…
2 Oct 1986
The court found the first five rollovers amounted to new loans but involved the addition of accrued unpaid interest to principal and charging interest on that sum, which constituted compound interest illegal under s22 and therefore those loans were unenforceable; the sixth loan (not rolled over) was enforceable because the Court exercised its discretion under s18(3) in favour of the plaintiff; separately, the margin loans were exempt under Part II para 5 of the First Schedule because they were made in the ordinary course of the plaintiff's stockbroking business, so judgment was entered for th…