CITIBANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. MAHTANI GOBIND HOTCHAND

HCMP 778/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 778 OF 2009

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM DCCJ NO. 4991 OF 2006)

----------------------

----------------------

------------------------

D E C I S I O N

------------------------

Hon Rogers VP:

1.  I agree with decision of Tang VP and the order proposed by him which is thus the order of this court.

Hon Tang VP:

2.  The proposed leave to appeal is totally without merit and has no reasonable prospect of success. 

3.  The plaintiff has obtained summary judgment against the defendant in respect of outstanding credit card payments.  The defendant disputed the plaintiff’s right to sue.  The credit card was issued by the Bank of America in 1985, since then there have been various assignments and in 2004 the relevant credit card business was transferred to the plaintiff.  At the time of the transfer to the plaintiff the defendant had an outstanding debit balance of about HK$68,091.15.  The defendant had made various small payments to the plaintiff and there were also ample evidence of notice of assignment to the defendant.  On such evidence, the learned judge was entitled to find that the plaintiff was entitled to sue by assignment or novation.

4.  The defendant had sought leave to file an affirmation to raise a further defence two days before the substantive hearing.  Leave was refused by the learned judge.  That was within the learned judge’s discretion and there is no basis upon which we can interfere.

5.  It is also said the plaintiff had not verified the Amended Statement of Claim.  But the rules only required the plaintiff to verify the facts on which the claim was based and that had been done.

6.  I would dismiss the application with costs to be taxed if not agreed.

7.  I also make an order under O. 59 r. 2A(8) that the defendant may not request this determination to be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes.