放債人條例的適用性及酌情權行使？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：CHEUNG CHOW v CHEUNG NG SHEONG STEVEN - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Bokhary 及 Mortimer 司法常務官 & Liu 法官 - 判決日期：1993年11月24日 ### 案情摘要 原告人（Cheung Chow）向其兄弟即被告人（Cheung Ng Sheong Steven）追討兩張支票的款項，總額為490萬港元，連同利息及訟費。這些支票是為被告人經營停車場業務而借出的約600萬港元貸款的擔保。被告人聲稱原告人是放債人 (money lender)，而這些貸款協議因未遵守《放債人條例》(Money Lenders Ordinance, Cap. 163) 第18條及第23條的規定而不可強制執行。原審副審判官楊振權裁定原告人勝訴，給予簡易判決 (summary judgment)。被告人就此判決提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，即使原告人被認定為放債人，其與被告人之間的貸款協議是否因未遵守《放債人條例》第18條及第23條的規定而不可強制執行。爭議點包括：副審判官將「在其放債人業務過程中」的字眼讀回條例是否恰當；以及在放債人未遵守條例規定的情況下，法院應如何行使酌情權 (discretion) 決定是否強制執行貸款協議。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審副審判官將舊有法例中「在其放債人業務過程中」的字眼讀回現行《放債人條例》第18條及第23條是不恰當的，因為這些字眼已被刪除。法庭認為，即使原告人是放債人，本案的貸款性質（例如商業利率、提供擔保）仍存在可爭議之處，不能斷定這些交易不屬於《放債人條例》的範圍。此外，關於條例中酌情權條款的適用，法庭認為需要更全面的事實調查，不能在簡易判決階段輕易決定。因此，被告人有權獲得無條件的抗辯許可 (unconditional leave to defend)。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了兩宗一審判決，探討法院在放債人未遵守條例時行使酌情權的態度： - Lee Wang Investment Co. Ltd v. Leung Boon Sing, HCA No. 14024 of 1983 (unreported) - Brother's Company v. Ah Puk Transportation [1986] HKLR 821 這些案例傾向於法院應謹慎行使酌情權，不應輕易豁免未遵守條例的放債人，以維護立法目的。上訴法庭指出，在簡易判決階段，無法完全排除這些觀點。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定被告人上訴得直 (appeal allowed)，撤銷原審簡易判決，並給予被告人無條件的抗辯許可。上訴訟費由被告人獲得，並命令將被告人為暫緩執行判決而存入法庭的款項連同利息發還給被告人的律師。原審簡易判決程序的訟費則列為訴訟費用 (costs in the cause)。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了在簡易判決申請中，若存在可爭辯的法律爭議，特別是涉及《放債人條例》的解釋及酌情權的行使時，應給予被告人抗辯許可。法庭指出，在缺乏全面事實調查的情況下，不應在簡易判決階段對複雜的法律問題作出最終裁決。此外，本案對《放債人條例》中「在其放債人業務過程中」的解釋提供了指引，明確指出該詞不應被讀回現行條例。 --- ### 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: CHEUNG CHOW v CHEUNG NG SHEONG STEVEN - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Bokhary & Mortimer JJA & Liu J - Date of Judgment: 24 November 1993 ### Factual Background The plaintiff (Cheung Chow) sued his brother, the defendant (Cheung Ng Sheong Steven), for payment on two cheques totalling HK$4.9 million, plus interest and costs. These cheques were given as security for loans of approximately HK$6 million made to the defendant for his car park business. The defendant raised a "money lender" defence, arguing that the loan agreements were unenforceable due to non-compliance with sections 18 and 23 of the Money Lenders Ordinance (Cap. 163). The Deputy Judge Yeung granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed against this decision. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were whether the loan agreements were unenforceable under the Money Lenders Ordinance, Cap. 163, sections 18 and 23, even if the plaintiff was deemed a money lender. Key points of contention included: the appropriateness of the Deputy Judge reading the words "in the course of his business as a money lender" back into the current Ordinance, and how the court's discretion should be exercised when a money lender fails to comply with the Ordinance's requirements. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the Deputy Judge erred by re-introducing the phrase "in the course of his business as a money lender" into sections 18 and 23 of the current Money Lenders Ordinance, as these words were deliberately omitted from the present legislation. The court found that there was an arguable case regarding whether the plaintiff was acting as a money lender in these transactions, given the commercial interest rates and security provided. Furthermore, the exercise of discretion under the Ordinance's provisos required a full investigation of facts, which was not possible at the summary judgment stage. Therefore, the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment referred to two first instance decisions concerning the exercise of discretion when money lenders fail to comply with the Ordinance: - Lee Wang Investment Co. Ltd v. Leung Boon Sing, HCA No. 14024 of 1983 (unreported) - Brother's Company v. Ah Puk Transportation [1986] HKLR 821 These cases suggested that courts should be slow to relieve non-compliant money lenders to uphold the legislation's objectives. The Court of Appeal noted that at the summary judgment stage, it could not definitively rule out this approach. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the defendant's appeal, setting aside the summary judgment and granting unconditional leave to defend. Costs of the appeal were awarded to the defendant. The money paid into court by the defendant as a condition for a stay of execution pending appeal, along with any interest, was ordered to be paid out to the defendant's solicitors. Costs of the Order 14 proceedings before the Deputy Judge were made costs in the cause. ### Key Takeaways This case highlights that where there are arguable legal issues, particularly concerning the interpretation of the Money Lenders Ordinance and the exercise of judicial discretion, unconditional leave to defend should be granted. The court emphasized that complex legal questions requiring a full factual investigation should not be decided at the summary judgment stage. It also clarified that the phrase "in the course of his business as a money lender" should not be read back into the current Ordinance. --- ### 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.