Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Guarantee enforceability

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2025

成都圆中侨信商贸有限公司 v. LEUNG KA CHUN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1049
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV467/2024

The Court refused leave to adduce the Chow affirmation because the appellant failed to satisfy the Ladd v Marshall conditions: he did not show that the evidence could not with reasonable diligence have been obtained for use below, and the proposed evidence was not apparently credible; accordingly the summons to admit new evidence was dismissed and no exceptional circumstances justified exercising residual discretion to admit the evidence.
19 Feb 2024

LAU WANG CHI, BARRY v. CGS-CIMB SECURITIES (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 493
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD17/2023

Court found the applicant discharged the threshold to show bona fide disputes on substantial grounds: (a) there is a substantial and arguable illegality defence because the CFDs plausibly amount to bets under the Gambling Ordinance when placed from Hong Kong under s7(1A); (b) there is a substantial misrepresentation dispute that the account traded in actual shares and induced reliance, supported by communications and conduct; claims under SFO and MLO lacked sufficient particularized evidence and failed. On these grounds the statutory demand was set aside and the matter should proceed to trial…
22 Feb 2021

YUANTA SECURITIES (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. NG YIN LAM

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 435
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1415/2017

The Guarantee was not superseded by the ICA or account Terms; it applied to clients served under the defendant's AE code including the 11 clients; the defendant was an independent contractor not an employee; no conflict with the SFC Code invalidated the Guarantee; Yuanta had suffered recoverable losses; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and entered for the plaintiff for the calculated amount with interest and costs; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
27 Nov 2020

HANTEC SECURITIES CO LTD v. TAM SIU KI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2960
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1179/2017

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the creditor's requirement for a guarantor had been satisfied by the first guarantor (D2) before the 3rd defendant's guarantee was procured; the 3rd defendant's guarantee was therefore given after the account was opened and the loan advanced and was past consideration, rendering the guarantee unenforceable.
6 Sept 2007

NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. SUN YUET TAI LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. SUN YUET TAI LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2860/1999

On the balance of probabilities and given contemporaneous documents and commercial common sense, the court found the plaintiff's account credible, held that the alleged misrepresentations were not proved, the guarantee was valid and enforceable, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum plus interest and costs.
24 Jan 2000

HABANERA LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINECOM LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

HABANERA LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINECOM LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7946/1998

Stay refused because the 1st defendant failed to demonstrate an arguable appeal or provide evidence that execution would ruin it; plaintiffs entitled to costs on an indemnity basis against the 2nd and 3rd defendants because liability and indemnity were pleaded and defendants produced no evidence to render the guarantee provision unenforceable; leave granted to enforce the judgment against the 1st defendant for payment with amended order for specific performance matters.
22 Jul 1999

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER v. SHANTOU INTERNATIONAL TRUST AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ANOTHER v. SHANTOU INTERNATIONAL TRUST AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10174/1997

The court granted partial summary judgment: the guarantee is enforceable at least to the extent of the indebtedness admitted and paid into court (12,175,113.76), dismissed the defendant's bare assertion of PRC law invalidity for want of particulars, rejected deduction of arbitration costs from the indebtedness, indicated that 23,929,262.81 with 5.25% interest would be the sum for which judgment ought to be given, but refused to grant summary judgment for the remaining balance and gave the defendant unconditional leave to defend as to that balance.
10 Nov 1998

IN RE CHINA WIN HOLDINGS LTD.

Citation

IN RE CHINA WIN HOLDINGS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW266/1998

Where the only material dispute is a narrow factual issue of consensus and credibility about whether a guarantee was agreed before execution of the replacement loan agreement, the court will direct cross-examination, resolve credibility, and may determine the issue itself in winding-up proceedings; on the facts the court accepted the petitioner's evidence and held the guarantee enforceable, so the defence failed and the winding-up order was made.
16 Mar 1989

BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS v. R.C. CHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANQUE NATIONALE DE PARIS v. R.C. CHEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8157/1988

Defendants' material consisted of vague assertions and inconclusive bank documents that merely raised suspicion and speculation; they failed to establish a prima facie or arguable defence that the principal contract was materially varied; therefore leave to defend was refused and plaintiff granted leave to sign judgment for the corrected sum.
24 May 1988

HENRY BOOT FAR EAST LTD v. FAR EAST CONSORTIUM LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HENRY BOOT FAR EAST LTD v. FAR EAST CONSORTIUM LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2189/1986

Court found on facts that Shine validly assigned the sub-contract and the benefit of the guarantee to the joint venture (Boot and Shine), that Airedale waived prior consent, that FEC had actual or constructive assent and was effectively the alter ego of Airedale, and therefore the assignment did not discharge the guarantee; completion occurred on probabilities in December 1984 and retention monies were payable; judgment entered against FEC for five dishonoured cheques, retention money and $6,500 costs, interest and costs to be determined.