Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Penalty interest

Legal area

Court

29 Jul 2019

FOSHAN NANHAI BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD v. FOSHAN RUIFENG PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL FUEL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1875
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2378/2014

The court exercised its discretion to vary the costs order nisi because the respondents' unsuccessful Challenge to the applicant's locus caused a significant increase in hearing time, preparation and delay; accordingly the respondents must pay 50% of the costs of the proceedings attributable to the Challenge, and the applicant's summons to vary the costs order nisi is allowed while the respondents' out-of-time variation summons is dismissed.
11 Jan 2017

DAH SING BANK, LTD v. RETKIE CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DAH SING BANK, LTD v. RETKIE CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP297/2016

Evidential requirements under Order 88 were satisfied, there was no real dispute as to the amount owing, the contractual terms permitted the plaintiff's charges and choice of enforcement, and therefore the plaintiff's application to enforce the mortgages was granted; the 1st defendant's arguments and request to sell the property itself were rejected.
14 Sept 2010

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING

Citation

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP447/2010

Leave to appeal was refused because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success; the penalty interest provisions are sufficiently complex and may produce an effective rate engaging ss24/25 of the Moneylenders Ordinance, giving the defendant an arguable defence, and the Instrument had been modified so claims after 1 December 2008 must be based on the modified terms; consequently a prompt trial was the appropriate route.
26 Jan 2010

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING

Citation

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2707/2008

The court held that the defendant raised arguable and substantial defences: the interest and penalty regime in the Deed and incorporated Instrument risked making the transaction extortionate under the Money Lenders Ordinance and the attempted post-execution variation/cap was not clearly incorporated; plaintiffs had not demonstrated mortgage enforcement sufficiently to justify summary judgment against the guarantor. Accordingly the defendant's appeal was allowed, the plaintiff's cross-appeal dismissed and the lower order in favour of the plaintiff set aside pending further steps.

Hong Kong Case Law

FOSHAN NANHAI BRANCH OF INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA LTD v. FOSHAN RUIFENG PETROLEUM AND CHEMICAL FUEL CO LTD AND OTHERS

DAH SING BANK, LTD v. RETKIE CO LTD AND OTHERS

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING

CATHAY PORT LTD v. ZHU MING