Win Wong Securities Ltd v Lei Wai Meng

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCA1867/2001
Judgment Date:15 Mar 2005
HCA001867/2001 WIN WONG SECURITIES LTD v. LEI WAI MENG

HCA1867/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

HIGH COURT ACTION NO. 1867 OF 2001

______________________

BETWEEN:

WIN WONG SECURITIES LTD Plaintiff
and
LEI WAI MENG Defendant

______________________

Before : Deputy High Court Judge Gill in Court

Date of Hearing : 15 March 2005

Date of Judgment : 15 March 2005

______________________

J U D G M E N T

______________________

1. The plaintiff is a Hong Kong company licensed and authorised to deal in securities under the provisions of the Securities Ordinance Cap.333.

2. On 2 February 1999, the defendant, a native of Jiangmen but, at the time, a resident of Macau, attended at the offices of the plaintiff for the purposes of opening an account with the plaintiff. One of the plaintiff’s designated traders called Chan Po-chun (Mr Chan) was instructed to look after the defendant; in particular, to prepare, explain and get him to complete the necessary documents. One of these was called the “cash client’s agreement”; another, the “authorisation for third party to operate my/our account”; and there was an information card.

3. The records of the plaintiff reveal that on that day the defendant entered into and signed the appropriate documents leaving also with the plaintiff a photostat copy of his Macau identity card. Mr Chan was, by the third-party authorisation, the plaintiff’s trader designated and authorised to trade on the defendant’s behalf. The defendant was given an account number. Reciting this over the phone enabled him to instruct a purchase or sale by telephone.

4. By the terms of the agreement the defendant, following an instruction to purchase shares, was required to put the plaintiff in funds to complete the purchase on or by two days after the date of instruction. Similarly if he gave instruction to sell, he had to have bought them on or by two days later. Default in compliance with these obligations by the defendant gave the plaintiff the right to trade in the defendant’s stocks to make good or reduce that fault. The defendant was to be held responsible for all losses occasioned by his default. That included an obligation to pay interest at a designated rate.

5. During the currency of their relationship, the defendant traded only in the shares of two companies called China DigiContent Company...

To continue reading

Request your trial