Wing Hang Bank, Ltd v. Manila and Hong Kong Capital Corporation Ltd
Read the full judgment text of HCA 5550/1985 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 6 January 1986.
1. This claim is very similar to that in A 5714/85 except that the amount owing to the Plaintiff is $U. S.500,000. A Credit Agreement between the Central Bank of the Philippines, the Government of the Philippines and numerous other banks of which the Plaintiff is one has also been exhibited here. This is a very long document Whereby the creditor banks agree not to enforce immediate payment of certain loans. However Schedule I Part I of that agreement excludes "Interbank placements in the foreign
|
HCA005550/1985 1985, No. A5550 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG HIGH COURT _____ BETWEEN
_______ Coram: Hon. Penlington, J. in Chambers Date of hearing: 16 December 1985 Date of delivery of judgment: 6 January 1986 ___________ JUDGMENT ___________ Background 1. This claim is very similar to that in A 5714/85 except that the amount owing to the Plaintiff is $U. S.500,000. A Credit Agreement between the Central Bank of the Philippines, the Government of the Philippines and numerous other banks of which the Plaintiff is one has also been exhibited here. This is a very long document Whereby the creditor banks agree not to enforce immediate payment of certain loans. However Schedule I Part I of that agreement excludes "Interbank placements in the foreign agencies subsidiaries and branches of Philippines (private and public) Banks". As with A 5714/85 an Assumption Agreement was executed on 20th September 1985 and the same conditions were set out except that one conditions that the Central Bank of the Philippines must approve the assumption, not the Monetary Board of that Bank. Case for the Plaintiff 2. The case for the Plaintiff is the same as in A 5714/85 and also it is alleged that the loan falls within the exception to the Credit Agreement which has not been denied. Again interest on the loan has continued to be paid by the Defendant not by Manilabank. There are two telexes regarding approval by the Central Bank. One dated 6th September says the Central Bank "has no objection" to the assumption, another dated 24th September says that such approval is subject to "verification of adequacy of assets to be transferred by MHKCC to Manilabank". No such verification has been received and final approval has not been given. There is no evidence at all as to the final condition, the approval of the Board of Directors of Manilabank. Case for the Defendant 3. Again the Defendant says that no time limit was laid down for obtaining the approvals and the Defendant should be granted leave to defend so that full discovery can be made and the matter fully argued at trial. For Decision 4. I am satisfied that the debt here is excluded from the Credit arrangement and I am satisfied that there were again two conditions precedent before there could be an agreement that Manilabank assume the Defendant's liability, i.e. the approval of the Central Bank of the Philippines and of the Board of Directors of Manilabank. Neither has been done and a reasonable time for obtaining those approvals has now expired. 5. The Plaintiff is entitled to judgment for $U.S. 504,611.98 together with interest at 10 1/16% from 8/10/85 on $U.S. 500,000 credit to be given for any interest paid. 6. The Plaintiff to have its costs here and before the Master
Representation: Mr. John Leigh of StePhenson Harwood & Lo for Plaintiff Miss J. Pinto (Kwan & Kwan) for Defendant |