The China and South Sea Bank Limited v. Hong Kong Union Transportation & Godown Company Limited
Read the full judgment text of HCA 8626/1982 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This claim arises out of similar circumstances to those entertained by me in action 8625, in that the defendant is the same godown company. It differs in that the plaintiff is a different bank. What happened here was that steel, in this case, I think I am right in saying 'mild steel round bars' was purchased from China by Wing Fat Hong through facilities provided by the plaintiff bank, in the form of letters of credit. The bank paid the price and became the holder for value of 5 godown warran
|
HCA008626/1982
BETWEEN
_____________________ Coram: Hon. Mantell J. Date of Hearing: 15th October 1984 Date of delivery of Judgment: 15th October 1984 __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. This claim arises out of similar circumstances to those entertained by me in action 8625, in that the defendant is the same godown company. It differs in that the plaintiff is a different bank. What happened here was that steel, in this case, I think I am right in saying 'mild steel round bars' was purchased from China by Wing Fat Hong through facilities provided by the plaintiff bank, in the form of letters of credit. The bank paid the price and became the holder for value of 5 godown warrants by which it was entitled to demand delivery to its order by the defendant of those quantities of steel. It did make demand in the same letters which featured in the earlier action, that is to say, by letters dated 29th May, 1982 and 10th June, 1982. The demands were not complied with or only complied with in part leaving a substantial shortfall. All those matters are admitted in the defence save that, as in the previous action, the defendant claims that the plaintiff's right to have the goods delivered to its order was compromised by an agreement between legal advisers on each side and that the plaintiff is estopped from relying upon that compromised agreement or the original claim by virtue of having made an interlocutory application in the action. Both these matters were for the defendant to prove today. Consequently, all that Mr. Tang had to establish to be entitled to judgment in the terms of the Statement of Claim was the value steel. That was done through the production of the invoices showing the price paid for the steel and it follows that there will be judgment for the plaintiff in the amount claimed in the Statement of Claim which corresponds with the amounts of the invoices, with, if I may anticipate the application, interest on the sums claimed from the 10th June until today at 2 1/2% over prime lending rate and from today, until satisfaction of judgment, at the rate prescribed for the time being by the Chief Justice.
Representation: Robert Tang (P.H. Sin & Co.) for Plaintiff Defendant - absent |