Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Margin trading

Legal area

Court

2 Jan 2025

晏江虎對實德貴金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2121
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1768/2020

The plaintiff failed to prove that the 5th–8th representations were false or that the 3rd defendant made them negligently or fraudulently; the Misrepresentation Ordinance s3(1) does not assist because there was no contract between plaintiff and 3rd defendant; evidence was insufficient (absence of complete trading records, market data and expert evidence); claim dismissed as against the 3rd defendant and costs awarded to him.
1 Jun 2020

FREEMAN SECURITIES LTD v. IP PO KI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2368/2018

The defendant failed to raise any bona fide arguable defence or triable issue: the alleged oral agreement and implied terms were inherently improbable and contradicted the written margin agreement and commercial common sense; the HK$70,000,000 alleged loan was implausible in the manner it was deposited; and the fraud exception did not apply because allegations of fraud were only directed at non-parties. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff for the principal, contractual pre-judgment interest and costs.
2 Aug 2019

BUT KA CHON v. INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC

Citation

[2019] HKCA 873
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV611/2018

The Court dismissed the appeal: the alleged misrepresentations were not a bona fide defence on substantial grounds because the webpage representations read in context and the Customer Agreement expressly granted IB sole discretion to liquidate; additionally the applicant failed to take steps to commence arbitration under clause 33B and thus did not satisfy the Lasmos third requirement, so there was no basis to exercise the court's residual discretion to set aside the statutory demand.
24 Jan 2019

RE TAM SHUK YI FANNY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7402/2017

Third‑party security (legal charge and security deeds) does not render the petitioner a secured creditor under section 2 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance and therefore does not constitute a defence to the statutory demands; no valid defence was established and bankruptcy orders were properly made.
15 Mar 2016

SO YUE BUN v. GLORY SKY GLOBAL MARKETS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SO YUE BUN v. GLORY SKY GLOBAL MARKETS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV237/2015

The Court of Appeal held that the judge's dismissal of the action against the 1st defendant should be set aside because the plaintiff had an arguable Replacement Statement of Claim and therefore should be granted leave to file it; the judge's striking out of the SOC as against the 2nd defendant and robust criticisms were largely justified; the costs order below was affirmed and the 1st defendant was entitled to the costs of the appeal on a party and party basis but not indemnity costs.
3 Dec 2012

CHEUNG PING KWONG v. CHAN KIN SUN

Citation

CHEUNG PING KWONG v. CHAN KIN SUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2485/2009

The transactions were margin trading integral to the defendant's stockbroking business and did not constitute money lending under Cap 163; consequently Cap 163 s18 did not render the securities unenforceable, and even if s18 applied the court would exercise its s18(3) discretion to enforce. The defendant was contractually entitled to liquidate the plaintiff's share account and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3 Jun 2011

WU SHENG LONG v. C-CORP PRECIOUS METALS LTD

Citation

WU SHENG LONG v. C-CORP PRECIOUS METALS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP888/2011

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the short delay was inexcusable — the plaintiff had correct legal advice and failed to verify his misunderstanding — and, in any event, he had no real prospect of success on the proposed appeal given that the Recorder's findings of fact and legal conclusions (principal-to-principal relationship, loss calculation, rejection of lien and consequential loss/indemnity) had proper evidential basis.
25 Nov 2010

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE BANK & TRUST HONG KONG BRANCH v. MIKE PANJWANI

Citation

SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE BANK & TRUST HONG KONG BRANCH v. MIKE PANJWANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA725/2009

On true construction the Facility Letter (clause B5) gives the bank an independent contractual right to sell Secured Assets upon breach of the Security Ratio without notice or consent; clauses B4/B5 (Security Ratio and sale) and General Terms 8.7/8.8 (margin Call/Close-out) operate in different spheres; terms requiring reasonable notice to comply with margin calls or that notifications must always be effective were inconsistent with express terms and the commercial matrix and thus not implied; the Defendant's factual account was not credible and he had no real or bona fide defence, so summary…
15 Oct 2009

HANTEC BULLION LTD (formerly known as HANTEC BULLION INVESTMENTS LTD) v. GOYAL MUKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

Citation

HANTEC BULLION LTD (formerly known as HANTEC BULLION INVESTMENTS LTD) v. GOYAL MUKESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5668/2007

The court refused leave to appeal out of time because the defendants failed to show a real prospect of success on the merits and sought to rely on changed and fresh evidence that had been previously rejected; the plaintiff's evidence established that the account liquidations were justified and the defence had no arguable case sufficient to warrant extension of time.
2 Mar 2006

TAI FOOK SECURITIES CO LTD v. SINCERE\'S KNITTING MILLS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAI FOOK SECURITIES CO LTD v. SINCERE\'S KNITTING MILLS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3394/2002

On the evidence, including contemporaneous telephone transcripts, the judge found no actionable misrepresentation by AC or other Plaintiff staff; statements were honest opinions or estimates, the Client Agreement allocated trading risk to the client and contained exclusion language; the broker acted reasonably and in accordance with the specific instructions he received in a rapidly falling market; defendants, experienced traders, bore the risk and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for the debt and interest, with counterclaim dismissed.