Totalcorp (Nominees) Limited v. Hong Kong Sai Kung Ngong Wo Resort Development Limited
Read the full judgment text of FAMV32/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 August 2022 before Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ, Mr Justice Tang NPJ.
1. We are satisfied that the following two questions involved in the present case are of great general or public importance and ought to be submitted to the Court for decision:
Legal issues: Whether BS Lyle Ltd v Chappell lays down a rule of law or construction on new loan capitalising accrued interest · Whether a new loan to discharge an existing loan contravening Section 24 MLO is tainted by illegality or fails for want of consideration
Outcome: Leave to appeal granted on two questions of law; leave refused on other questions.
Cites 1 case
|
FAMV No 32 of 2022 [2022] HKCFA 17 IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 32 OF 2022 (CIVIL) (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO 72 OF 2020) ____________________
____________________
_________________________ DETERMINATION _________________________ Mr Justice Lam PJ: 1.We are satisfied that the following two questions involved in the present case are of great general or public importance and ought to be submitted to the Court for decision:
2.We decline to grant leave to appeal on the other questions raised in the Notice of Motion and the application for leave on the “or otherwise” limb. In particular, the meaning of money-lender under the MLO is well settled and the applicant’s intended challenge is not arguable in light of the concurrent finding by the courts below. Likewise, the question as to the applicability of Order 88 of the Rules of the High Court Cap 4A is not reasonably arguable. 3.We grant leave to appeal accordingly. 4.The appeal will be listed for hearing on 1 December 2022.
Mr Kenneth CL Chan and Mr Roland Lau, instructed by Kong & Tang, for the defendant (applicant) Mr Victor Dawes SC and Mr Joshua Chan, instructed by MinterEllison LLP, for the plaintiff (respondent) |
Cases cited in this judgment