Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegality under money lenders ordinance

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2022

AMPLE SKY HOLDINGS LTD v. TRILLION WIDE CREDIT FINANCE LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2203/2019

Evidence proved the defendant's director executed the loan agreements and the loans were advanced and received; the defendant produced no evidence to rebut. Alleged MLO non‑compliances were not shown to cause prejudice and did not bar enforcement; the 2nd Loan Agreement manifested an intention to create an equitable security and the defendant failed to prove non‑registrability. Judgment entered for the plaintiff for principals and accrued interest; originating summons dismissed; costs awarded to plaintiff.
23 Dec 2022

TRILLION WIDE CREDIT FINANCE LTD v. AMPLE SKY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3813
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA288/2019

The plaintiff proved execution of the two loan agreements, receipt and non‑repayment of the loans; the defendant produced no evidence to rebut; alleged MLO non‑compliances were either inapplicable, not shown to cause prejudice, or did not invalidate the agreements (and the 2nd loan fell outside MLO as a bona fide property purchase loan); the 2nd Loan Agreement evidenced an intention to create an immediate equitable interest and was registrable; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the originating summons dismissed.
20 May 2022

YBN REEVER AND OCEAN PARTNERS LTD v. UNIBIOCHEM INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1422
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA312/2017

The court found the Investment Agreement enforceable as an equity subscription with a Put Option (not a loan under the MLO), rejected the 2nd Defendant's alleged oral settlement and implied term arguments as not credible or inconsistent with contemporaneous documents and the contract's written variation clause, and therefore granted declarations and specific performance: defendants ordered to deliver the audited consolidated accounts for 2014 and 2015 within 28 days and to complete purchase of the 644 Put Option Shares within 28 days; costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
13 Apr 2017

YAO GUOLIANG v. LIU YANG

Citation

YAO GUOLIANG v. LIU YANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2269/2015

The Court found the Defendant validly completed and signed the Letter of Undertaking, understood its nature, and that the Plaintiff's forbearance to sue for twelve months constituted adequate consideration; the Letter was enforceable as a contract and there was no arguable triable defence, therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the claimed sum and interest.
22 Dec 2016

SWISS FINANCE MORTGAGE SERVICES LTD v. WONG KAM FAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

SWISS FINANCE MORTGAGE SERVICES LTD v. WONG KAM FAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1244/2015

Defendants failed to establish triable issues of actual undue influence or unconscionability and produced no reliable evidence that plaintiff knowingly took unfair advantage; the alleged handling fees were unproven and clause 11's contravention of s22(1)(c) did not mandate unenforceability because, on balance of the equities and applying the wide discretion in s22(2) MLO, it was equitable to enforce the loan for principal and contractual interest; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and plaintiff entitled to judgment and costs.
27 Dec 2007

PAUL Y. MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PAUL Y. MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA571/2007

The loan deed was a standalone, enforceable written contract with a specified repayment date; oral allegations that it formed part of a wider Master or Further Agreement or that the plaintiff acted as agent for PYE were rejected as inconsistent and unsupported by contemporaneous documents; parol evidence was inadmissible to vary the written deed; the alleged set-off, set-off against damages and illegality defences lacked credible evidence and failed; accordingly there was no real triable defence and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
18 Jun 1998

UNIVERSE LINK INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LIGGARS LTD.

Citation

UNIVERSE LINK INDUSTRIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. LIGGARS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4001/1997

The correct construction of s.2(1) and Schedule 1 Part 2 is that a person who makes a loan to a company secured by a registrable mortgage is excluded from the definition of "money lender" as respects that loan; therefore the Loan Agreement was not rendered illegal by the Money Lenders Ordinance and the mortgage was enforceable, so the appeal was dismissed and judgment entered for the plaintiffs in MP4001.
30 Sept 1994

CHEUNG BING SUM JUANA v. LEO LEE

Citation

CHEUNG BING SUM JUANA v. LEO LEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV146/1993

The Court accepted the judge's factual findings that an enforceable sale agreement existed evidenced by Exhibit P3 and that the plaintiff's evidence was credible; the alleged illegal loan was a separate transaction not connected to the sale, and therefore did not bar specific performance; the additional evidence was rightly refused as irrelevant and unprobative; accordingly the appeal failed and specific performance (subject to refined terms) plus costs was ordered.