Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interest recovery

Legal area

Court

13 Oct 2023

FOREVER PROPERTY FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. BARRETTO, BERNICE MARY

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2189/2015

The court accepted the unchallenged plaintiff evidence, rejected the defendant's pleaded defences for lack of admissible supporting evidence and inconsistency with contemporaneous documents, held the contractual interest rates not extortionate, and entered judgment for the plaintiff for the stated sums, interest and vacant possession, with costs on a solicitor and own client basis nisi.
18 Aug 2023

THING ON CAPITAL LTD v. AN JINCHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2128
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1019/2019

The court found the defendants were explained the transactions in Mandarin and were bound by their signatures; the facility letters complied with s18 MLO and there was no prohibited term under s22; although unlawful deductions under s27 occurred, s27(4) affords repayment or set‑off rather than unenforceability; accordingly the loans were enforceable and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the outstanding principals, accrued interest, costs and ancillary relief including possession and sale upon default.
17 Jan 2023

RAINBOW MORTGAGE SERVICES LTD 對 LI MAN LAI

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 141
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3357/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's evidence: the defendant executed the loan documents on 14 August 2015, received $943,000, and Mark Wong/Asia Hong Zhi were not agents of the plaintiff; accordingly the loan agreement is binding and the defendant is ordered to repay principal of HK$943,000 with contractual interest at 30% per annum from 14 August 2015 until full payment, and to pay the plaintiff's costs.
15 Aug 2017

CHAN YUK BUN v. TSOI YAN YEE LILY AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN YUK BUN v. TSOI YAN YEE LILY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1153/2014

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence that the loans were advanced out of friendship and inherited funds and found she was not carrying on a money‑lending business; therefore the loan agreements were enforceable. The 2nd defendant, having signed as guarantor, was liable because no pleaded or credible duress/undue influence was established. Judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the stated sums with interest and costs.
7 May 2001

The New China Hong Kong Finance Ltd. (in liquidation) v. To Sau Ching

Citation

The New China Hong Kong Finance Ltd. (in liquidation) v. To Sau Ching
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ14129/2000

The court held that initial non-compliance with Order 83A r.2 was an irregularity curable by amendment and did not render proceedings a nullity; the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the standard loan agreement and authority letters were signed pursuant to usual business practice and that account records and statements established the principal and pre-liquidation contractual interest; summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HKD 157,188.45 (principal HKD 115,901.83, custodian charges HKD 200, contractual interest to liquidation HKD 41,086.62) with interest order…
15 Mar 1985

ALLIED CAPITAL RESOURCES LTD v. ROLLER INDUSTRAIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ALLIED CAPITAL RESOURCES LTD v. ROLLER INDUSTRAIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5907/1982

The court found on the balance of documentary and oral evidence that Exhibit P11 was a valid joint and several guarantee covering the facilities as increased from time to time; the defendants failed to prove that the guarantee had been returned, rendered ineffective, limited to a $3 million facility, or waived by plaintiff or its Manila parent; plaintiff proved entitlement to the principal sum and contractual interest up to 31 May 1983 and the court fixed interest thereafter at 16% per annum until payment; guarantors are liable for the debt and for recovery costs on a solicitor and own client…
11 Nov 1974

THE CANTON TRUST & COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. FUI MEN-TAK FORMERLY t/a WEI TAK TAILORS AND MANDARIN PRODUCTS CO AND OTHERS

Citation

THE CANTON TRUST & COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. FUI MEN-TAK FORMERLY t/a WEI TAK TAILORS AND MANDARIN PRODUCTS CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA609/1971

The bank drafted the guarantee and omitted any 'on demand' clause; that omission manifested an intention that the guarantor be immediately liable without prior demand, so limitation does not start from an unmade demand; nevertheless limitation rules (Parr's principle) restrict recovery to advances within six years prior to the writ, limiting the plaintiff to interest accrued in that period from the third defendant; judgment against the fourth defendant entered because he failed to prosecute his signature denial and handwriting expert evidence favors the bank.

Hong Kong Case Law

FOREVER PROPERTY FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. BARRETTO, BERNICE MARY

THING ON CAPITAL LTD v. AN JINCHEN AND ANOTHER

RAINBOW MORTGAGE SERVICES LTD 對 LI MAN LAI

CHAN YUK BUN v. TSOI YAN YEE LILY AND ANOTHER

The New China Hong Kong Finance Ltd. (in liquidation) v. To Sau Ching

ALLIED CAPITAL RESOURCES LTD v. ROLLER INDUSTRAIES LTD AND OTHERS

THE CANTON TRUST & COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. FUI MEN-TAK FORMERLY t/a WEI TAK TAILORS AND MANDARIN PRODUCTS CO AND OTHERS