Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Events of default

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2025

TANG, RAYMOND v. EARLS HORIZON LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1666
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1433/2021

The court held that the waiver by the Seller of an indebtedness of HK$5,380,974 could not be included as profit for the purposes of the Minimum Profit because the parties intended a clean break at Closing pursuant to clause 7.2(a); accordingly the relevant profit period runs from the watershed of Closing (held to commence 1 August 2018) to 31 July 2020 for the purposes of determining Shortfall; on the facts there is a Shortfall and Events of Default under the SHA, entitling the Defendant to invoke remedies under clause 15; quantum of compensation for the Shortfall is to be determined after wr…
12 Nov 2024

INTEGRATED CAPITAL (ASIA) LTD v. CHAN TING

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1778/2022

The judge held that the defendant raised an arguable cheque-specific defence because the written loan agreements objectively supported that the undated cheques were delivered as conditional security and could only be used after specified events of default and written notice (Clause 13.2); those factual issues were hotly disputed and not suitable for summary determination. Because triable issues existed in respect of both the dishonoured cheques and the loans (including factual disputes about settlement and enforcement of security and procedural compliance under the loan terms), the appeal was…
18 Dec 2023

CHINA PING AN INSURANCE OVERSEAS (HOLDINGS) LTD v. LUCK GAIN LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1196/2022

Clause 4.2 of the Subscription Agreement, read in context, creates a clear and enforceable contractual obligation owed by the issuer and guarantor to the plaintiff to ensure the Certificates (including Definitive Certificates upon an event of default) are delivered to the registrar for authentication; that obligation is not inconsistent with the Bond Documents or the intermediated securities regime; there was no triable issue or arguable defence and final judgment granting specific performance was appropriate.
8 May 2023

AI AND OTHERS v. LG II AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1183
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT69/2022

The application to set aside the arbitral Award was dismissed because the Court found the Tribunal had considered and decided the principal issues (foreign and domestic illegality, misrepresentation, contractual breaches, and events of default) with reasons that a reasonable party could discern in context; the Plaintiffs had a fair opportunity to present their case; the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction in determining Events of Default under the Notes; and alleged legal errors or disagreement with the Tribunal's conclusions do not justify setting aside under Model Law Article 34 or on pu…
14 Jul 2021

BLUESUN CAPITAL LTD v. TEWOO GROUP FINANCE NO 3 LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2040
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1428/2020

The default judgment was irregular and must be set aside because it awarded relief (direct payment to the plaintiff) that was not pleaded after the plaintiff abandoned the only pleaded basis for such relief; additionally the plaintiff materially failed to disclose contested issues going to standing and validity of service, and the defendants have a real prospect of success on key defences (including that the plaintiff did not hold >25% of outstanding Bonds and did not satisfy indemnity/prefunding preconditions).
19 Mar 2020

CHINA DING YI FENG HOLDINGS LTD v. HUANG QINGZHAN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 484
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP719/2019

The court held that the Company failed to pay the first Interest Payment on 31 March 2016 in the manner required by Conditions 4 and 5, that the default continued beyond the 5‑day cure period so a payment default under Condition 8(i) occurred and Huang was entitled to require early redemption (notice effective 16 August 2016; sums due 1 September 2016). Conversely, Clause 2.2 was a warranty given as at the subscription/completion period and did not survive beyond the Completion Date, so the 2019 SFC suspension did not breach Clause 2.2 and did not give rise to an event of default under Condit…
18 Dec 2015

HENGSHI INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD v. BAYSPRING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HENGSHI INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENTS LTD v. BAYSPRING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1916/2015

The court held there are serious issues to be tried on the nature of the pledge and alleged unlawful sales/sub-pledging, no material non-disclosure at the ex parte stage, the balance of convenience favors continuation of the injunction pending arbitration, bankers' records under s.21 EO should be disclosed to trace shares/proceeds, and the defendant failed to establish need for fortification of the plaintiff's undertaking.
9 Apr 2013

TGI FRIDAY\'S INC v. PERFECT WAVE LTD

Citation

TGI FRIDAY\'S INC v. PERFECT WAVE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2376/2012

On the balance of preliminary assessment the plaintiff demonstrated good prospects of success: detailed audits showed multiple uncured critical and major breaches and repeated non-compliance after notice and cure periods amounting to substantial deviation from required Standards and material Events of Default; damages would be an inadequate remedy for harm to goodwill; delay was not such as to make relief unjust; accordingly interlocutory prohibitory and mandatory relief to require immediate cessation of TGIF use and de-identification was justified subject to fortification of the undertaking…
4 Oct 2004

TRAFFIC STREAM INFRASTRUCTURE CO LTD AND OTHERS v. FULL WISDOM HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TRAFFIC STREAM INFRASTRUCTURE CO LTD AND OTHERS v. FULL WISDOM HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV15/2004

Leave to appeal refused because the evidence of PRC law relied on by applicants was unsatisfactory and inadmissible as a basis to resist summary judgment, and because applicants conceded the JV contracts were valid at inception and only 'became' illegal (if at all) after the State Council Notice, thereby engaging clause 501(11)(c) which negated any mutual mistake defence; no question of great general or public importance arose and there was inexcusable delay.
5 Jul 1988

CREDIT AGRICOLE v. CROSSLAND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

CREDIT AGRICOLE v. CROSSLAND INDUSTRIES CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/1988

The Court of Appeal upheld summary judgment because the bank adduced credible and corroborated evidence that the Facility letter was executed by Chi on behalf of Crossland, the loan of US$300,000 was advanced under that Facility and events of default occurred; the defendants failed to show any real or triable issue (their evidence was discredited and inconsistent), so summary judgment against both borrower and guarantor was proper.