Sanwa Finance Hong Kong Ltd. v. Honey Technology Ltd. and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 22129/1998 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 26 August 1999.
1. This is a claim by a finance company plaintiff for summary judgment against a defendant hirer and a number of defendant guarantors.
|
HCA022129/1998 HCA 22129/1998 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO. 22129 OF 1998
---------------------- Coram : Godfrey, J.A. in Chambers (sitting as an additional Judge of the Court of First Instance) Date of Hearing : 26 August 1999 Date of Judgment : 26 August 1999 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. This is a claim by a finance company plaintiff for summary judgment against a defendant hirer and a number of defendant guarantors. 2. The defendant hirer claims that the plaintiff promised to hold its hand until 31 October 1998 (which the plaintiff accepts) and that the "standstill" was subsequently extended until May 1999, so that the plaintiff's demand for payment eventually made in November 1998 was premature. But there is no evidence sufficiently clear and unequivocal to support the defendant hirer's case for an extended "standstill" and indeed its own evidence suggests that no agreement for such an extended "standstill" was ever concluded. I will therefore give judgment as asked against the defendant hirer. 3. The defendant guarantors claim that the plaintiff promised to release them from their guarantees but has not done so. They rely on a letter dated 19 September 1996, under which the plaintiff agreed to do so subject to the conditions precedent there listed. One of those conditions was that all other bank creditors would release the defendant guarantors from any similar claims. There is some evidence that many, but not all, have done so. This is of course not good enough. Another condition is that Honko International Holdings Ltd provide a substitute guarantee, but that has not been done, and will not now be done, because the plaintiff sought to enforce the guarantees before the conditions specified originally in the letter of 19 September 1996 were met. This has been therefore overtaken by events, and provides the defendant guarantors with no defence to the plaintiff's action. I shall therefore give judgment as asked against the defendant guarantors as well. The costs of the plaintiff of the action will be taxed and paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.
Representation: Mr. Clifford Smith instructed by M/s. Deacons Graham & James for Plaintiff Mr. Thomas Au instructed by M/s. Richard Tai & Co. for Defendants
|