BAGUIO GREEN GROUP LTD v. 上海亘远环保股份有限公司 AND OTHERS

HCA 1848/2017

[2020] HKCFI 1934

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 1848 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  This is the Plaintiff’s action for the return of a refundable deposit it had paid under a Letter of Intent dated 8 June 2016 (“L/I”). The primary obligator for the refund is the 1^st Defendant, the contracting party who received the deposit under the L/I. The 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants were the guarantors for the fulfilment of the 1^st Defendant’s obligations under the L/I.

2.  Judgment had already been entered against the 1^st Defendant.  The 3^rd Defendant had indicated in his Acknowledgment of Service that he did not intend to contest these proceedings, and he has not appeared this morning.  This is the trial primarily against the 2^nd Defendant.

3.  The Plaintiff’s claim is based primarily on the L/I, as well as the documentary evidence concerning the payment of the deposit and the partial refund made to the Plaintiff.  There remains an outstanding balance of HK$4,500,000.  The contemporaneous documents concerning the Plaintiff’s demands for repayment did not reveal any dispute over the liability to repay the deposit. 

4.  Bluntly, it is difficult to see what defence there is to the Plaintiff’s claim against the 2^nd Defendant.  The 2^nd Defendant has not appeared this morning to advance the allegations contained in his Defence.

5.  In the premises, I give judgment in favour of the Plaintiff in the terms of the draft judgment before the court as amended.