Read the full judgment text of HCA 5587/2000 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 10 October 2012 before Deputy High Court Judge Lisa Wong, SC.
Securities law – margin trading – money lending – whether unilateral post-execution additions by a securities broker to a client's account opening documents (Information Statement, Margin Agreement, Facility Letter) were material alterations voiding those documents under the rule in Pigot's Case – whether the civil illegality doctrine renders transactions unenforceable where a securities broker's unregistered employee acted as a dealer's representative in contravention of s 50(1)(a) of the Securities Ordinance (Cap 333) – whether non-compliance with s 18(1) and (2) of the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap 163) rendered the margin loan agreement unenforceable, and whether the court should exercise its discretion under s 18(3) – Defendant's daughter, employed as an 'Assistant Officer' but acting as an unregistered dealer's representative, was the only SCS employee who handled the Defendant's account opening, took his buy and sell orders, reported executions and advised him on trading between 19 October 1999 and 31 March 2000 – Defendant signed undated, partly blank account opening documents taken home by his daughter, after which SCS staff added dates, the account number, personal particulars and the Facility Letter's principal amount and interest rate – whether alterations were 'potentially prejudicial' to the obligor's legal rights or obligations under Raiffeisen Zentralbank v Crossseas Shipping – the Information Statement and Facility Letter did not contain the operative repayment obligation, which was found in the unaltered Memorandum and Margin Agreement, so voiding them would not defeat the claim – first ground of defence (unilateral alterations) rejected – whether breach of SO s 50 by Jessie rendered the underlying margin transactions unenforceable – court followed Richardson Greenshields of Canada (Pacific) Ltd v Chow Paul and subsequent Court of Appeal approval in Tullett & Tokyo v APC Securities, holding that the absence of express civil consequences under s 50, contrasted with express civil consequences under ss 72(4), 73(4), 76(4) and 143(5), indicated no legislative intent to render contracts unenforceable – second ground of defence (illegality) rejected – third ground of defence under MLO s 18 – SCS failed to obtain a signed memorandum containing the principal and interest rate before the loan, used a floating 'HSBC PRIME PLUS 4%' rate contrary to s 18(2)(i) per Emperor Finance v La Belle Fashions, and provided no memorandum for advances exceeding the HK$200,000 Facility – court exercised discretion under s 18(3) to enforce the agreement in full, having regard to SCS's attempt at compliance, the Defendant's awareness of his obligations, the same terms applying to the excess advances, and the Defendant's ongoing receipt of daily and monthly statements – third ground of defence rejected – judgment for the Plaintiff – Defendant ordered to pay the outstanding sum of HK$326,675.31 with simple interest at HSBC best lending rate plus 4% from 30 November 2000 and post-judgment interest at the contractual rate, and costs of the action including the costs occasioned by the adjournment of the October 2010 trial – counterclaim for restitution of moneys paid into the Defendant's own account and Mrs Iu's account, and for damages for non-execution of share sale orders in respect of Tak Sing Alliance Holdings (stock code 126) and Fourseas.Com (stock code 755), not pursued and dismissed.
Legal issues: Effect of unilateral post-execution alterations to account opening documents · Civil enforceability of securities transactions where dealer's representative was unregistered under SO s 50 · Enforceability of margin loan agreement under MLO s 18 and exercise of s 18(3) discretion
Outcome: Judgment for the Plaintiff South China Securities Limited against the Defendant Mr Lam Kwen Yuen in the sum of HK$326,675.31, with interest. All three grounds of defence raised by Mr Lam were rejected.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 4 cases