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

Case No.FAMV32/2022[2022] HKCFA 17
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Date01 Aug 2022
JudgeMr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ, Mr Justice Tang NPJ
Case Document
100%Judiciary

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)

____________________

BETWEEN    
  TOTALCORP (NOMINEES) LIMITED Plaintiff
(Respondent)
  and
  HONG KONG SAI KUNG NGONG WO RESORT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
(香港西貢昂窩渡假村發展有限公司)
Defendant
(Applicant)

____________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Tang NPJ
Date of Hearing and Determination : 1 August 2022

_________________________

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:

(1)  Whether BS Lyle Ltd v Chappell [1932] 1 KB 691 (followed in New Japan Securities International (HK) Ltd v Lim Yiong Lin [1987] 3 HKC 153 and Honip Credit Ltd v Leung Tak Sing Paul [2020] HKCA 879) lay down a rule of law or a rule of construction that whenever there is an extension of a loan a new loan capitalising the accrued interest comes into existence?

(2)  When a new loan is knowingly made for the purpose of discharging an existing loan which contravenes Section 24 of the Money Lenders Ordinance Cap 163 (“MLO”), is the new loan tainted by illegality at common law or does it fail for want of consideration notwithstanding that the effective interest rate under the new loan does not contravene that section?

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.

   (Joseph Fok) (M H Lam)   (Robert Tang)
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge

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)