Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Parent company guarantee

  • 31 Aug 2021

    CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. GUARANTOR

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2558
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT15/2021

    The Court dismissed the setting aside application because the guarantee and arbitration agreement were valid, the arbitrator lawfully confined jurisdiction to the contractual 'sole issue' concerning Funding Schedule Payments, the defendant failed to prove any s89 grounds (invalid agreement, inability to present case, or public policy breach), and due weight is to be given to the US supervisory court's confirmation of the award.

  • 11 Apr 2019

    RE SIT KWONG LAM

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 920
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB6051/2018

    Petition allowed and bankruptcy order made because the statutory demand was not set aside, there was no valid arbitration clause in the guarantor documents capable of preventing the petition (and any such clause would be unenforceable if it fettered statutory insolvency rights), the Debtor by signing the Settlement Agreement and executing the PG Addendum consented to the extension and remained liable as guarantor, and the Debtor’s evidence of imminent refinancing was speculative and insufficient to show a reasonable prospect of repayment within a reasonable time.

  • 14 Apr 2011

    CHIAPHUA INDUSTRIES LTD v. AMCOR HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    CHIAPHUA INDUSTRIES LTD v. AMCOR HOLDINGS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW104/2010

    Although Clause 2.2 on its face limits the guarantee to subsidiaries that countersigned, the parties' conduct and the side letter signed by Amcor Limited estopped Amcor Holdings from denying liability for sums owed by Amcor Limited; Amcor Limited's writ and charge-back allegations were insufficiently particularised to constitute a bona fide defence on substantial grounds; therefore the winding-up petition succeeded and a winding-up order was made.

  • 4 Sept 2008

    RE JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD

    Citation
    RE JACKIN TOTAL FULFILMENT SERVICES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW628/2006

    The court concluded that, absent the parent company guarantee dated 30 January 2008, it would have ordered the winding up of the company; accordingly JSM succeeded for the period up to and including 30 January 2008 and is entitled to its costs for that period, to be taxed if not agreed. The petitioner's application to vary the costs order between it and the company was refused because no legal obligation existed for the company to provide the detailed explanation the petitioner sought and speculative assertions do not alter the normal rule that costs follow the event.