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

Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v Lok Shek Hung

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date04 August 2022
Neutral Citation[2022] HKDC 805
Year2021
Judgement NumberDCCJ1903/2021
Subject MatterCivil Action
CourtDistrict Court (Hong Kong)
DCCJ1903/2021 STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. LOK SHEK HUNG

DCCJ 1903/2021

[2022] HKDC 805

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1903 OF 2021

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

BETWEEN

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LIMITED Plaintiff
and
LOK SHEK HUNG Defendant

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

Before: Deputy District Judge Teresa Wu in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 14 July 2022

Date of Decision: 4 August 2022

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

DECISION

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

A. INTRODUCTION

1. By two Notices of Appeal to Judge in Chambers respectively dated 10 January 2022 and 1 March 2022, the Defendant acting in person appeals to the Court from the decisions of Master Maurice Lam respectively dated 4 January 2022 and 23 February 2022 (“the Master’s Appeal”) making, inter alia, the following orders (collectively, “the Orders”):

(1) The Final Judgment entered against the Plaintiff for the Defendant’s Counterclaim on 3 August 2021 (“the Default Judgment”) be set aside;

(2) The Writ of Fieri Facias issued on 31 August 2021 and amended on 10 September 2021 by the Defendant be set aside;

(3) The sum of HK$848,620.00 paid into court by the Plaintiff on 24 September 2021 pursuant to the Order of Master Jocelyn Leung dated 23 September 2021 be paid out to the Plaintiff through its solicitors, Messrs Tsang, Chan & Wong;

(4) The Defendant do pay the Plaintiff:

(a) a sum of HK$915,519.78 with interest thereon at the rate of 0.1051% per day from 24 April 2021 to 4 January 2022, and thereafter at the judgment rate until full payment; and

(b) a sum of HK$461,744.79 with interest thereon at the rate of 0.0914% per day from 24 April 2021 to 4 January 2022, and thereafter at the judgment rate until full payment (“the Summary Judgment”);

(5) The execution of the Summary Judgment be stayed pending the determination of the Plaintiff’s application for striking out of the Defendant’s Counterclaim to be made on or before 24 January 2022;

(6) 80% of the costs of the Plaintiff’s Summons filed on 2 August 2021 for the Summary Judgment summarily assessed to be HK$159,377.00, amounting to HK$127,501.60, be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff forthwith;

(7) No order as to costs of the Plaintiff’s Summons filed on 6 August 2021 for the setting aside of the Default Judgment and stay of execution and the costs reserved by Master Jocelyn Leung on 23 September 2021;

(8) The Defendant’s Counterclaim as contained in paragraphs 22 to 27 of the Defence and Counterclaim filed on 8 June 2021 and paragraphs (1) to (4) of the prayer to such counterclaim be struck out in entirety; and

(9) Costs of the Plaintiff’s Summons filed on 11 January 2022 for the striking out of the Defendant’s Counterclaim summarily assessed to be HK$700.00 be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff forthwith.

2. The substantive hearing of the Master’s Appeal (“the Substantive Hearing”) took place before the Court on 14 July 2022.

B. OVERVIEW

3. In the action herein, the Plaintiff seeks to recover from the Defendant the outstanding credit card payments, together with interest and other fees and charges owed by him from using the VISA Platinum Credit Card No 4058-0380-1943-7477 (“the First Card/the First Card Account”) and the Priority Banking Credit Card No 4423-9483-3134-6289 (“the Second Card/the Second Card Account”) (collectively, “the Credit Cards/the Credit Card Accounts”) issued to him.

4. The Defendant does not dispute that he has indeed used the Credit Cards and incurred debts. The Defendant’s only complaint is that the interest charged by the Plaintiff is “excessive” in the following sense. Due to financial difficulties, the Defendant has only settled the minimum payment of the Credit Cards in the past 7 years. The Plaintiff however has failed to apply those amounts towards the repayment of the principal loan owed by him. According to the Defendant’s observation, the overall outstanding amount owed by him remains almost the same even though the payments made by him to the Plaintiff throughout these years should have in total exceeded the original principal loan.

5. In these circumstances, the Defendant alleges that the Plaintiff is in breach of the Unconscionable Contracts Ordinance (“the UCO”) (Cap 458), the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance (“the SSO”) (Cap 457) and/or some other overseas legislation and regulation, code and practice etc., and is therefore wrongful, illegal and/or has fallen below the reasonable standard. The Defendant further submits that the present case involves public policy considerations, taking into account the common use of credit cards in Hong Kong but the allegedly wholly inadequate level of protection afforded to credit card users, especially in terms of the interest that can be charged by banks, when compared to the overseas jurisdictions.

6. The Defendant relies on the same matters above to establish his counterclaim against the Plaintiff.

7. After considering the submissions thoroughly made by Mr Adrian Wong acting for the Plaintiff and the Defendant in person, and the evidence adduced by the parties below and in the Master’s Appeal (as contained in the respective affidavits/affirmations of Lam Shing Loi, Keith (referred to below as “Keith 1st” etc.) and Wong Hoi Man Mandy (referred to below as “Mandy 1st” etc.) for the Plaintiff and those of the Defendant himself (referred to below as “Def 1st” etc.))[1], and examining the cases and authorities diligently cited by both sides, it is abundantly clear that the Master’s Appeal is completely unmeritorious and should be dismissed.

8. Here are the detailed reasons.

C. PLANTIFF’S CLAIMS

9. The Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendant are straight-forward ones.

10. The Plaintiff is a bank carrying on business at 32nd Floor, Nos. 4-4A Des Voeux Road Central, Hong Kong (“the Plaintiff’s Office”), among other premises in Hong Kong, providing banking facilities.

11. On or about 16 January 2009, the Defendant applied in writing to the Plaintiff for a credit card. The Plaintiff approved the application and issued the First Card to the Defendant subject to the terms and conditions in the Credit Card Cardholder Agreement (“the Cardholder Agreement”).

12. On or about 5 May 2010, the Defendant applied in writing to the Plaintiff for another credit card. The Plaintiff approved the application and issued the Second Card to the Defendant subject to the terms and conditions in the Credit Card Terms (“the Credit Card Terms”) and the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited Credit Card Key Facts Statement for Standard Chartered and Manhattan Cardholders (“the Key Facts Statement”) as may be in force from time to time.

13. On the Plaintiff’s case, as at 23 April 2021:

(1) a sum of HK$915,519.78 was owed by the Defendant under the First Card Account, together with interest accruing on it at the contractual rate of 0.1051% per day from 24 April 2021 until full payment; and

(2) a sum of HK$461,744.79 was owed by the Defendant under the Second Card Account, together with interest accruing on it at the contractual rate of 0.0914% from 24 April 2021 until full payment.

14. On 26 February 2021, the Plaintiff through solicitors made a formal demand to the Defendant for payment but such demand has not been met by the Defendant at any stage until now.

15. On 28 April 2021, the Plaintiff therefore took out the Writ and commenced the present action against the Defendant claiming for, inter alia:

(1) the sum of HK$915,519.78, together with interest at the contractual rate of 0.1051% per day from 24 April 2021 to the date of Judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment;

(2) the sum of HK$461,744.79, together with interest at the contractual rate of 0.0914% per day from 24 April 2021 to the date of Judgment and thereafter at judgment rate until payment; and

(3) costs.

D. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

16. The events underlying the making of the Orders below and those relevant to the Master’s Appeal are as follows:

Date
 Event(s)
28 April 2021 Writ of Summons with Statement of Claim
8 June 2021 Defence and Counterclaim
2 August 2021 Summons for the Summary Judgment (“the O 14 Summons”)
3 August 2021 The Defendant entered into the Default Judgment for his Counterclaim in the sum of HK$848,620.00
6 August 2021 Summons for the setting aside and stay of execution of the Default Judgment (“the Setting Aside Summons”)
20 August 2021 Both the O 14 Summons and the Setting Aside Summons were adjourned for argument on 4 January 2022; the Plaintiff’s application for interim stay of the execution of the Default Judgment was not dealt with by the court[2]
31 August 2021 Issue of the Writ of Fieri Facias
10 September 2021 Re-filing of the Amended Writ of Fieri Facias
16 September 2021 Bailiff appeared at the Plaintiff’s Office to execute the Amended Writ of Fieri Facias[3]
-Ditto- Filing of Notice of Change of Solicitors of the Plaintiff to Messrs. Tsang, Chan & Wong
-Ditto- Ex parte Order of Master Jocelyn Leung for stay of execution of the Default Judgment until the return date, 23 September 2021
23 September 2021 Order of Master Jocelyn Leung for stay of execution of the Default Judgment until the determination of the O 14 Summons and the Setting Aside Summons, subject to the Plaintiff’s payment of HK$848,620.00 into court on or before 24 September 2021, 4:00 pm, and also stay of the Amended Writ of Fieri Facias
24 September 2021 Payment of HK$848,620.00 into court by the Plaintiff
28 December 2021 Reply and Defence to Counterclaim
4 January 2022 The Orders made by Master Maurice Lam for:
...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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