Baguio Green Group Ltd v. 上海亘远环保股份有限公司 and Others

Read the full judgment text of HCA 1848/2017 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 July 2020.

1. This is the Plaintiff’s action for the return of a refundable deposit it had paid under a Letter of Intent dated 8 June 2016 (“L/I”). The primary obligator for the refund is the 1 st Defendant, the contracting party who received the deposit under the L/I. The 2 nd and 3 rd Defendants were the guarantors for the fulfilment of the 1 st Defendant’s obligations under the L/I.

Case No.HCA 1848/2017[2020] HKCFI 1934
Court
High Court CFI
Date22 Jul 2020
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCA 1848/2017

[2020] HKCFI 1934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1848 OF 2017

________________________

BETWEEN

  BAGUIO GREEN GROUP LIMITED
(碧瑤綠色集团有限公司)
Plaintiff
  and  
  上海亘远环保股份有限公司 1st Defendant
  LAW SIU TONG (罗少棠) 2nd Defendant
  詹世军 3rd Defendant

________________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Court
Date of Hearing: 22 July 2020
Date of Judgment: 22 July 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.This is the Plaintiff’s action for the return of a refundable deposit it had paid under a Letter of Intent dated 8 June 2016 (“L/I”). The primary obligator for the refund is the 1st Defendant, the contracting party who received the deposit under the L/I. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants were the guarantors for the fulfilment of the 1st Defendant’s obligations under the L/I.

2.Judgment had already been entered against the 1st Defendant.  The 3rd Defendant had indicated in his Acknowledgment of Service that he did not intend to contest these proceedings, and he has not appeared this morning.  This is the trial primarily against the 2nd Defendant.

3.The Plaintiff’s claim is based primarily on the L/I, as well as the documentary evidence concerning the payment of the deposit and the partial refund made to the Plaintiff.  There remains an outstanding balance of HK$4,500,000.  The contemporaneous documents concerning the Plaintiff’s demands for repayment did not reveal any dispute over the liability to repay the deposit. 

4.Bluntly, it is difficult to see what defence there is to the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2nd Defendant.  The 2nd Defendant has not appeared this morning to advance the allegations contained in his Defence.

5.In the premises, I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the terms of the draft judgment before the court as amended.

  (Anthony Chan)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Tom Ng, instructed by Robertsons, for the Plaintiff

The 2nd Defendant was not represented and did not appear

The 3rd Defendant was not represented and did not appear