SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1990 MarsdenLR 1463

CHAO HICK TIN
RE CITY SECURITIES PTE; HO MUN-TUKE DON – Appellant
Versus
DRESDNER BANK – Respondent


Advocates:
Richard Yorke QC (CR Rajah and Elizabeth Choo (Ms) with him) for the plaintiffs.
Peter Cresswell QC (Davinder Singh and Indranee Rajah (Ms) with him) for the first and second defendants.
Michael Miller QC (David Hew and Yap Shao Sin with him) for the third and eighteenth defendants.
Gavin Lightman QC (Chan Cher Boon and Aqbal Singh with him) for the fourth defendants.
Davinder Singh (Indranee Rajah (Ms) with him) for the fifth and seventh defendants.
Sarjit Singh Gill (S Dilhan with him) for the sixth, ninth and tenth defendants.
Peter Cresswell QC (Randhir Ram Chandra with him) for the eighth defendant.
Woo Bih Li (Anthony Lee and Chew Seok Yam (Ms) with him) for the twelfth, thirteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth defendants.
Sarbjit Singh (Liew Tuck Yin with him) for the fourteenth defendant.
Tok Boon Leong for the seventeenth defendant.
Solicitors: Tan Rajah & Cheah; Drew & Napier; Cooma Lau & Loh; Chan Cher Boon & Partners; Shook Lin & Bok; Haridass Ho & Partners; Allen & Gledhill; Lim & Lim; Chung & CoReported by Terence Tan Bian Chye

Chao Hick Tin JC

This originating summons was taken out by the plaintiffs, the liquidators of a stockbroking company, City Securities Pte (hereinafter called 'City'), to determine the legal nature of certain security instruments created by City in favour of 18 banks who are the defendants herein.

Pursuant to a creditor's petition filed on 3 July 1986, City was wound up by an order of court made on 31 October 1986. In the meantime, on 4 July 1986, provisional liquidators were appointed. Prior to the presentation of the winding-up petition, City had at diverse dates obtained loans, advances or credit facilities from each of the 18 defendant banks. As security for the facilities obtained, City executed in favour of each of the first 18 defendants a letter of hypothecation whereby City charged to each bank all stocks and shares held by City in the course of its business, which were more particularly listed out in daily certificates (in the case of the fourth defendant, periodic notices, and the eighteenth defendant, periodic certificates) furnished or to be furnished by City to each bank. The instrument held by the eighteenth defendant was just a 'facility letter' issued by that defend

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top