擔保協議的性質與上訴許可？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：TELINGS INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LIMITED v JOHN HO (何約翰) 及 CHAN YIM SANG (陳炎生) 及 HO KING ASSETS CORP. - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Le Pichon JA, Stone J 及 Bharwaney J - 判決日期：2011年3月2日 ### 案情摘要 原告（Telings International Hong Kong Limited）向終審法院申請上訴許可，不服上訴法庭於2010年10月22日作出的判決。該判決推翻了原審法官命令第一及第二被告（擔保人）向原告支付1.36億港元連利息的裁決，並下令重審。本案涉及一份買賣Uniplan全部已發行股本的協議，原告為賣方，第三被告為買方。第一及第二被告作為擔保人，其責任是根據協議條款，在買方未能履行付款義務時承擔責任。被告亦申請逾期上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 原告申請上訴許可的主要法律爭議在於，其針對擔保人的申索是否屬於《香港終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第22(1)(a)條所指的「可追討的定額債項」(liquidated claim)。原告主張擔保協議屬於第一類擔保（即主債務人未能支付時由擔保人支付），因此申索為定額債項。被告則申請逾期上訴許可，質疑上訴法庭下令重審的恰當性，認為原告在一審時的證據不足以確立申索。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了擔保協議的條款，特別是第8.01條。該條款前半部分規定擔保人「無條件及不可撤銷地保證」買方履行義務，這被視為第二類擔保（保證履行合約，違約時可追討損害賠償）。雖然條款後半部分看似第一類擔保（主債務人未能支付時由擔保人支付），但法庭認為其受制於前半部分。鑑於擔保協議的非傳統性質以及對申索性質的疑慮，法庭認為不宜在存在疑問或不確定性的情況下，基於申索屬於第22(1)(a)條範圍內而授予上訴許可。對於被告的逾期上訴申請，法庭認為其延誤理由（法律顧問改變主意）不足以構成延期，且所提出的上訴問題不涉及重大普遍重要性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] A.C. 331, 344-345 一案中 Lord Reid 對兩種擔保類型區分的論述，這對法庭理解擔保協議的性質及其對申索類型的影響至關重要。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了原告向終審法院申請上訴許可的申請。同時，法庭也拒絕了第一及第二被告申請延長上訴時間的申請。法庭頒布了臨時訟費命令，不作任何訟費命令。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在解釋擔保協議時，區分「保證支付」與「保證履行合約」的重要性，這將影響申索是屬於定額債項還是損害賠償。對於非傳統或條款複雜的擔保協議，若對其性質存在疑慮，法院在授予上訴許可時會持謹慎態度。此外，法律顧問改變主意並不足以構成申請延長上訴時間的充分理由。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: TELINGS INTERNATIONAL HONG KONG LIMITED v JOHN HO (何約翰) & CHAN YIM SANG (陳炎生) & HO KING ASSETS CORP. - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Le Pichon JA, Stone J and Bharwaney J - Date of Judgment: 2 March 2011 ### Factual Background The plaintiff (Telings International Hong Kong Limited) applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal dated 22 October 2010. That judgment had allowed the defendants' appeal, setting aside Chung J's order for the 1st and 2nd defendants (guarantors) to pay the plaintiff HK$136 million plus interest, and ordered a retrial. The case involved an agreement for the sale of the entire issued capital of Uniplan, with the plaintiff as vendor and the 3rd defendant as purchaser. The 1st and 2nd defendants were guarantors, liable under the agreement if the purchaser failed to meet its payment obligations. The defendants also applied for leave to appeal out of time. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue for the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal was whether its claim against the guarantors constituted a "liquidated claim" under section 22(1)(a) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484). The plaintiff argued the guarantee was of the first type (to pay if the principal debtor fails), making it a liquidated claim. The defendants, in their out-of-time application, questioned the appropriateness of a retrial order, contending that the plaintiff's case at first instance was insufficient to establish a claim. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed the terms of the guarantee agreement, specifically clause 8.01. The first part of this clause, stating that the guarantors "unconditionally and irrevocably guarantee" the purchaser's performance, was deemed a guarantee of the second type (guaranteeing performance, leading to damages for breach). Although the latter part of the clause appeared to be a first-type guarantee (to pay if the principal fails), the court considered it subsumed by the governing first part. Given the non-conventional nature of the agreement and the doubt regarding the true nature of the claim, the court found it inappropriate to grant leave under section 22(1)(a) where such uncertainty existed. For the defendants' out-of-time application, the court found the reason for delay (change of mind by legal advisors) insufficient and the proposed appeal question lacked great general importance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The court referred to Lord Reid's speech in Moschi v Lep Air Services Ltd [1973] A.C. 331, 344-345, which distinguished between two types of guarantees. This distinction was crucial for the court's analysis of the nature of the guarantee agreement and its implications for the type of claim. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Concurrently, the court also refused the 1st and 2nd defendants' application for an extension of time to appeal. A costs order nisi was made, with no order as to costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the importance of distinguishing between a guarantee to pay if the principal debtor fails and a guarantee of performance of the contract, as this affects whether a claim is for a liquidated sum or damages. For non-conventional or complex guarantee agreements, courts will exercise caution in granting leave to appeal if there is doubt about the claim's nature. Furthermore, a change of mind by legal advisors is not a sufficient reason for an extension of time to appeal. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.