Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Korea Trade Insurance Corporation v Fortune Dragon Motors (International) Co Ltd

Judgment Cited authorities 2 Cited in 1 Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date22 July 2019
Neutral Citation[2019] HKCFI 1824
Year2019
Judgement NumberHCA1281/2018
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtCourt of First Instance (Hong Kong)
HCA1281A/2018 KOREA TRADE INSURANCE CORPORATION v. FORTUNE DRAGON MOTORS (INTERNATIONAL) CO LTD

HCA 1281/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 1281 OF 2018

____________

BETWEEN
KOREA TRADE INSURANCE CORPORATION Plaintiff
and
FORTUNE DRAGON MOTORS
(INTERNATIONAL) COMPANY LIMITED Defendant

____________

Before: Hon Mimmie Chan J in Chambers (open to public)
Date of Hearing: 18 July 2019
Date of Decision: 22 July 2019

_______________________

D E C I S I O N

_______________________

1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is for the outstanding amount of US$1,075,822.10 (“Outstanding Amount”) due under a Settlement Deed dated 10 April 2018 (“Deed”) signed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant and Daewoo International Corporation (“Company”). Under the Deed, the Defendant confirmed that it owed US$1,165,822.10 (“Debt”) to the Plaintiff, and agreed to settle the Debt by 16 installments in accordance with a schedule for payment (“Schedule”). After 2 installments, the Defendant defaulted in further payment, and the Plaintiff instituted proceedings on 1 June 2018 for recovery of the Outstanding Amount. On 5 December 2018, the Master entered summary judgment against the Defendant, against which the Defendant now appeals.

2. The Defendant claims that there are triable issues as to the Plaintiff’s locus to sue on its rights under the Deed, as the Plaintiff is suing as having been subrogated to the claim of the Company against the Defendant, as the insurer of the Company. The Defendant claims that it is entitled to seek discovery of documents evidencing the sale and purchase agreement between the Defendant and the Company which created the Debt, the insurance policy between the Plaintiff and the Company and, in particular, the Plaintiff’s payment to the Company of the Debt. The Defendant argued that payment to the insured is a condition precedent of subrogation and the Plaintiff’s ability to exercise its rights of subrogation as an insurer, in respect of the benefits and remedies of the insured Company against the Defendant, for the Debt due from the Defendant to the Company. The Defendant says that “in the event that” there was no payment, there would be misrepresentation which would then render the Deed unenforceable.

3. The Defendant further claims that, although the Deed signed by the Defendant contains a recital that the Plaintiff had honored the insurance payment to the Company pursuant to the relevant terms of the insurance, and was subrogated to the position of the Company as creditor of the Defendant by a letter of assignment dated 24 November 2016, the Defendant is not bound or estopped from disputing the Debt or denying that the Outstanding Amount is payable by the Defendant. Counsel for the Defendant relies on the fact that parties to an insurance contract cannot by themselves agree that the insurer can exercise rights of subrogation prior to payment...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Lead Properties Ltd v Secretary For Justice
    • Hong Kong
    • 28 October 2022
    ...Insurance Corp v Fortune Dragon Motors (International) Co Ltd [2018] HKCFI 2701 at §13, decision affirmed by Mimmie Chan J on appeal in [2019] HKCFI 1824. For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that a vesting order should be Mr Cheung also very fairly pointed out to this Court that ev......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT