10 Feb 2025
The court held that the operative cause of action accrued on the date of the relevant demand reflected in the account statement of 2 August 2023 showing the large margin call and account balance; earlier, smaller margin calls did not fix accrual for the larger debt and did not render the petition time-barred under the Limitation Ordinance.
12 Feb 2019
The appeal was dismissed because the alleged novation was not arguable: the SPA was only between Asia Health and Z, there was no evidence the brokers consented to or were notified of the contractual arrangements necessary to shift liability, there was no reliable evidence of delivery or refusal of settlement instructions to CSC, and the remaining defences depended on the novation; accordingly summary judgment against the guarantor was properly granted and the counterclaim struck out.
24 Feb 2011
The court allowed specific discovery limited to the period 19–27 October 2008 because account and securities statements for that period are directly relevant to assessing the defendant's liquid assets, the reasonableness of the bank officers' belief and the plaintiff's conduct; the request was not a fishing expedition and redaction was practicable given the defendant's experience.
25 May 2009
The court held that the plaintiff validly exercised its contractual power of sale upon defendants' default, the private sale to the sole bidder did not constitute bad faith or sale at undervalue on the evidence, the contractual clause permitting an increase in interest was discretionary and lawful, and the defendants failed to establish estoppel or undue influence; accordingly there was no plausible defence and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs.
28 Apr 2009
Summary judgment was refused and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend because the recorded telephone transcripts and the pleadings raise arguable triable issues about whether the defendant gave immediate liquidation instructions, whether the bank improperly delayed or required cash, whether the bank fulfilled duties to propose options or use client assets, and whether acting as counterparty creates issues that cannot be resolved on paper and therefore require a trial.
7 Mar 2001
Clause 3.2 must be construed so that 'the relevant Margin' refers to amounts deposited (not reduced by floating losses) while 'the then current value of the relevant Contract' reflects trading losses; accordingly the bank was not entitled to deduct floating trading losses from the margin or to make the additional margin call that would have authorised squaring off, and no implied term justified the bank's conduct; appeal allowed and judgment for plaintiff.
24 Jun 1999
The recorded telephone conversations and transcripts were reliable and showed the defendant bought the futures and promised further margin; he failed to provide the margin, his positions were lawfully closed out causing the deficit, and he failed to particularise any arguable quantum or a real defence, therefore summary judgment and striking out the counterclaim were proper.
31 May 1999
The court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence and contemporaneous taped conversations and account records, rejected the defendant’s claim he instructed sale of all securities, found the plaintiff lawfully exercised its contractual right to sell after the defendant failed to meet margin calls, and awarded the plaintiff $414,144.52 plus interest and costs.
1 Aug 1995
The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous documents showing the defendant authorised idling and partial unlocking, found the account statements to be conclusive under Clause 9, concluded the plaintiff validly exercised its contractual right under Clause 11 to liquidate after the margin call and dishonoured cheque, rejected the alleged oral compromise and estoppel, and therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff for US$55,739.77 with contractual interest and costs.
19 Jan 1995
The judge found the defendant's account that he instructed Mr Note to sell the shares was not inherently incredible and, absent direct contradiction, created triable issues as to Sanyo's liability and the extent of the defendant's indebtedness; the disputed effect of Japanese law also raised factual issues requiring trial; summary judgment was therefore inappropriate and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.