Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Floating charge crystallisation

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2014

THE BUILDING AND LOAN AGENCY (ASIA) LTD v. JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

THE BUILDING AND LOAN AGENCY (ASIA) LTD v. JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1887/2012

The appeal failed because the defendant offered no credible explanation for the delay; the master was not misled by non-disclosure; there was insufficient evidence that liquidation was imminent or that the plaintiff acted to prejudice creditors; the s86 discretion was rightly exercised to protect assets with a proviso for intervening creditors; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
30 Aug 2001

KENNIC LAI HANG LUI v. SUNLIGHT PAPER PRODUCTS CO. LTD.

Citation

KENNIC LAI HANG LUI v. SUNLIGHT PAPER PRODUCTS CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2923/2001

The court doubted the validity of the clause 3.02 crystallisation notice because there was no evidence the lender reasonably considered specified assets to be in danger, but found that clause 9.01 empowered appointment of receivers once the security was enforceable; given the company's non‑cooperation and absence, the court granted the receivers' order in the form of the draft order with deletion of references to specific charged assets and confined to that part of the undertaking identified in the notices.
15 Jun 2001

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK v. I-CHINA HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK v. I-CHINA HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7266/2000

Defendants had an arguable defence to the Loan Agreement claim because there was no clear and unequivocal election by the 1st Defendant to affirm the Loan Agreement; mere denial of liability without specifying grounds or seeking rescission is not sufficient to deprive the defendant of the right to defend. Consequently summary judgment under Order 14 was inappropriate and the summons was dismissed with unconditional leave to defend.
5 Jun 1974

MITSUI & CO LTD v. UNITED OVERSEAS MOTORS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MITSUI & CO LTD v. UNITED OVERSEAS MOTORS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1245/1974

The court held that by agreement the plaintiffs re-assumed possession and control of the vehicles through recovery of the keys and the compound key, thereby reviving the unpaid seller's lien or, at minimum, creating a limited proprietary/control interest which crystallised and which the bank could not override; accordingly an interim injunction was granted to restrain the bank from interfering and to require delivery of the keys.

Hong Kong Case Law

THE BUILDING AND LOAN AGENCY (ASIA) LTD v. JOY RICH DEVELOPMENT LTD

KENNIC LAI HANG LUI v. SUNLIGHT PAPER PRODUCTS CO. LTD.

CHINA MERCHANTS BANK v. I-CHINA HOLDINGS LTD. AND ANOTHER

MITSUI & CO LTD v. UNITED OVERSEAS MOTORS LTD AND OTHERS