24 Aug 2016
The petition succeeds because the Bank proved the debt was due on the face of contemporaneous documents and the Company's alleged defence of fraud by its agent is unsupported and would not have put the Bank on notice; discovery was unnecessary; a conditional winding-up order was appropriate.
17 Oct 2006
The court refused to vary the costs order nisi because the bank, not the company, had raised the security issue that increased litigation; the bank ultimately failed to prove the monies were proceeds of sale, so the general rule that costs follow the event applies and the successful party (the company) is entitled to costs here and below; the Elgindata third principle did not apply.
27 Oct 2004
The court held that the Cargo Receipts and Trust Receipts did not establish a valid pledge because they were not documents of title conferring possession nor was attornment proved; at best they created an equitable charge which required registration under Cap.32 s.80 and was not registered, rendering the security void against the liquidators, so the debits were dispositions void under s.182 and must be repaid.
29 May 2001
The Court held the payments were not fraudulent preferences because (1) several payments were not payments by the company but by third parties or by a related company pursuant to arrangements to discharge guarantor liabilities, (2) the payments resulted from legitimate enforcement of guarantees and security (including release and re‑mortgage of third‑party property) and did not give the bank a preference over other creditors, and (3) proceeds related to trust receipts were de facto security of the bank such that the company had no free assets to prefer; accordingly the liquidator's claim fail…
19 Mar 1999
The court must exclude costs attributable to the withdrawn LC claim, limit TR claim costs to 11 January 1997, discount inflated or inaccurate items and fix reasonable gross sums; applying these principles the court fixed gross costs inclusive of the hearing at HKD 80,000 for the TR Claim and HKD 150,000 for the AC Balance Claim.
24 Nov 1995
Judge accepted Mr Yang's evidence that he was told by the branch manager that his liability would be limited to HK$400,000 and would not extend to Asia's pre‑existing debts; given the branch's involvement and pressures from head office the representation was made and induced execution of the Legal Charge, so the Legal Charge was set aside and the Bank's claim dismissed.
15 Oct 1984
The Bank lawfully acquired the bill (or at minimum an equitable security) by virtue of the application to negotiate together with the letters of hypothecation; accordingly the Bank was entitled to credit US$10,000, dispatch the bill for collection, apply that credit to outstanding trust receipts and to realize security when the bill was dishonoured; the 2nd Defendant is liable under the guarantee. The 1st Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
3 May 1978
The court held that on the facts the arrangement was an advance/loan secured by identifiable jewellery evidenced by trust receipts and not a partnership; the trust receipts were not 'bills of sale' within the Bills of Sale Ordinance because they were documents used in the ordinary course of business and were executed to record the applicant's equitable rights (and, on the evidence, executed prior to deposit), therefore the jewellery listed in AD-8 was held on trust for the applicant and must be declared the applicant's property; Partnership Ordinance provisions did not convert the applicant i…
7 Apr 1978
The appeal was dismissed because there was at least an issue fit for trial as to whether the guarantees covered operations under letters of credit and trust receipts, and because an amendment obtained irregularly is not nullity — the defendant must apply to strike out if it seeks relief rather than simultaneously complaining and arguing the merits.