Tsang Kin Chuen v Tsang Chuen Chee

Court:District Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:DCCJ4126/1968
Judgment Date:19 Sep 1968
DCCJ004126/1968 TSANG KIN CHUEN v. TSANG CHUEN CHEE

DCCJ004126/1968

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CIVIL JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 4126 OF 1968

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

BETWEEN
TSANG KIN CHUEN Plaintiff

AND

TSANG CHUEN CHEE Defendant

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

Coram: J.T. Williams, D.J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 19 September 1968

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

JUDGMENT

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

1. The plaintiff sues for $2,900 as the balance due on 2 cheques dated 19th and 22nd May, 1967 for sums of $1,700 and $2,000.

2. The defendant admits drawing the cheques and their dishonour. He alleges they were issued to secure loans of $1,700 and $2,000 from the plaintiff at interest of 4% per month. He alleges that the plaintiff is an unregistered money lender and he called one witness.

3. The defendant began and when he closed his case the plaintiff gave no evidence, but submitted that the defendant had failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff was in the business of money lending, and even if the plaintiff were a money lender there was no evidence that he was unlicensed.

4. The evidence of the defendant and his witness D.W.2, Mr. FAN that the interest was 4% per month was not challenged in any way. Apart from those two loans the defendant says that in 1966 he had received a post dated cheque from a customer on which he had obtained a loan at 4% per month from plaintiff. The cheque was honoured and the plaintiff was repaid.

5. The defendant also states that he did not receive the full amount of $1,700 and $2,000 shown in the cheques, but was paid those sums less 4% which the plaintiff deducted as an advance payment of interest. The three loans referred to by the defendant were clearly high interest money lending transactions. I have to consider whether they are sufficient to establish a case that the plaintiff is in the money lending business.

6. In Premar Ltd. v. Shaw Brothers(1) the plaintiffs, a hire-finance company, were involved in lending transactions outside the scope of that business. It was held that plaintiff was in business of money-lending, but that decision was based on 57 transactions (p.585 F/G).

7. In LITCHFIELD v. DREYFUS(2) the plaintiff loaned to friends and acquaintances at lower rates than they would get elsewhere on about ten occasions and accepted substantial securities. It was held that he was not a...

To continue reading

Request your trial