Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Margin requirements

Legal area

Court

9 Sept 2022

SHINNING INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A.

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1341
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV484/2018

Clause 5.1 of the MDA did not incorporate the SFC Code so as to impose contractual regulatory duties; on the facts and against the contractual disclaimers (MDA, RDS, General Terms, Confirmations/TIPs) Citibank did not assume a legal duty of care to advise on suitability/risks of the Disputed ACs and, in any event, no breach or causative link was established; BSI’s termination instructions were suspended by agreement with Ms Lai who had authority (actual and apparent), so guarantees remained in force; appeals dismissed.
8 Mar 2002

THE KA WAH BANK LTD v. BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI

Citation

THE KA WAH BANK LTD v. BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV13/2001

The court held that 'current value' in clause 3.2 means the US dollar value of the customer's Yen entitlement; the bank was entitled to deduct the floating loss from the cash margin and require the remaining margin to be topped up to 5% of that current value, and therefore properly demanded additional margin and lawfully closed out the contracts on the customer's default, so the Court of Appeal's contrary construction was wrong.
3 Mar 1987

SAN FU & CO (a firm) v. SO SUN YUEN

Citation

SAN FU & CO (a firm) v. SO SUN YUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV114/1986

The Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge had given questionable and insufficient reasons for disbelieving the defendant, failed to properly assess material evidence (notably the sequence of London trades), and therefore the verdict could not stand; appeal allowed and a new trial ordered.

Hong Kong Case Law

SHINNING INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. CITIBANK, N.A.

THE KA WAH BANK LTD v. BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI

SAN FU & CO (a firm) v. SO SUN YUEN