Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Pledge

  • 21 Jan 2021

    GEMINI FUNDS LTD v. CHINA BEIDAHUANG INDUSTRY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 227
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1948/2019

    Defendants' core factual case — that the plaintiff guaranteed the loan and agreed to pledge the original shares (including ancillary bonus shares) — is inherently improbable and contradicted by contemporaneous documents (the written Chinese Agreement and the lender's Letter of Request) and by the absence of any reference to the alleged oral pledge in subsequent correspondence; therefore the defendants have failed to raise any arguable defence and summary judgment is appropriate.

  • 2 May 2017

    PRAISE FORTUNE LTD v. ALEGANA ENTERPRISES LTD

    Citation
    PRAISE FORTUNE LTD v. ALEGANA ENTERPRISES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA858/2017

    The court found the conditions of Order 29, r6 were satisfied: the Pledgee did not dispute the Pledgor's title but only claimed a right to retain as security, the Pledgor paid the Sum into court based on the Pledgee's closing statement and the parties had agreed to terminate the loan, contractual provisions relied upon by the Pledgee did not negate this position, and therefore the Pledgee was ordered to transfer and deliver the pledged shares to the Pledgor upon the Sum remaining in court.

  • 24 May 2016

    BRINK\'\'S HONG KONG LTD v. KBC BANK N.V.

    Citation
    BRINK\'\'S HONG KONG LTD v. KBC BANK N.V.
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV52/2015

    Delivery of the diamonds to the carrier, consigned to the pledgee's agent, amounted to constructive delivery perfecting the pledge and giving the pledgee an immediate right to possession; therefore the pledgee had locus to sue for conversion and the carrier's lack of knowledge of the pledge was immaterial; leave to appeal was refused and the Court of Appeal's costs order was upheld as a discretionary, fact‑specific decision.

  • 24 May 2016

    BRINK\'S HONG KONG LTD v. KBC BANK N.V.

    Citation
    BRINK\'S HONG KONG LTD v. KBC BANK N.V.
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV45/2015

    The pledge was perfected by constructive delivery when the diamonds were consigned to the pledgee's agent (BEA) via the carrier, giving the pledgee an immediate right to possession and locus standi to sue for conversion; the carrier's knowledge or ignorance of the pledge was irrelevant; attornment was not required; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the Court of Appeal's substantive and costs orders were upheld.

  • 14 Aug 2015

    ANTWERP DIAMOND BANK N.V. v. BRINK’S, INCORPORATED AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ANTWERP DIAMOND BANK N.V. v. BRINK’S, INCORPORATED AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV282/2012

    Leave to appeal was refused because the appeal did not qualify as of right (plaintiff sought unliquidated damages not proprietary relief) and the novel questions relied upon were not argued below; no exceptional reason to grant leave under the alternative limb. The trial sanctioned offer engaged Order 22 for the trial stage: the 3rd Defendant must pay trial costs on indemnity basis from 6 August 2011 and enhanced interest on damages is appropriate. Appeal costs remain party and party. Court varied its prior orders accordingly.

  • 17 Jul 2014

    ANTWERP DIAMOND BANK N.V. v. BRINK’S, INCORPORATED AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ANTWERP DIAMOND BANK N.V. v. BRINK’S, INCORPORATED AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV282/2012

    Delivery of the diamonds to the carrier consigned to the plaintiff's agent (BEA) constituted constructive delivery to the plaintiff and completed the pledge under the working capital agreement, thereby giving the plaintiff sufficient possessory title to maintain an action in conversion; appeal allowed and damages awarded.

  • 2 Mar 2010

    PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2277/2009

    The court held that the 1st defendant had not opposed the injunction and had consented to the amendments, so the plaintiffs' summons against the 1st defendant was dismissed and costs against the 1st defendant remain costs in the cause; the 2nd defendant's defences that it was a pledgee and that there was material non-disclosure failed, so the costs order was varied in favour of the plaintiffs as against the 2nd defendant; overall costs of the summons are to the 1st defendant in any event, plaintiffs to have their costs against the 2nd defendant, and all contested costs are to be taxed by gros…

  • 17 Dec 2009

    PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    PRINCESS YACHTS INTERNATIONAL PLC AND ANOTHER v. MASTER YACHTS CO LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2277/2009

    The court held that clause 4 did not create a pledge: the part payment was not treated as a debt, the wording described a free rental and the contract omitted the usual terms (power of sale, timing and dealing with proceeds) that would indicate intention to create a pledge; therefore the 2nd defendant had no right to possession. The court also found no material non-disclosure in the ex parte application and concluded the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiffs, so the interlocutory injunction was continued with specified conditions.

  • 2 Dec 2009

    RE HANG FUNG JEWELLERY CO LTD

    Citation
    RE HANG FUNG JEWELLERY CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW503/2008

    The Court held the cargo receipt constituted an attornment effecting constructive delivery and thereby completed a valid pledge in favour of the Bank over the 40 identified gold bars; although the cargo receipt would otherwise be an assurance of chattels (and thus a bill of sale), it fell within the statutory exception as a document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of possession or control of goods and therefore did not require registration; accordingly the pledge was valid and the Bank was entitled to apply the proceeds of sale to discharge the indebtedness. The Pledge and Tr…

  • 8 May 2008

    CHINA MINSHENG BANKING CORP. LTD v. DICHAIN HOLDINGS LTD

    Citation
    CHINA MINSHENG BANKING CORP. LTD v. DICHAIN HOLDINGS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT34/2007

    Clause 6(b) constituted at most an agreement to pledge and, absent delivery/attornment or a present right to have the shares made available, no legal or equitable security interest was created; accordingly the Bank's charging order should be made absolute and the summary judgment obtained by the plaintiffs (procured without disclosure of existing orders) should be set aside and the Bank's Order 14 appeal allowed.