Cai v Tsang

The case of Cai v Tsang involved the plaintiff, Cai, seeking judgment against the defendant, Tsang, in relation to a guarantee that Tsang provided for a loan made by Cai to Tsang’s company. The company defaulted on its repayments, and Cai sought to enforce the guarantee against Tsang. Tsang argued that the guarantee was either void, unjust, or unenforceable, or that Cai’s conduct prevented the guarantee from being enforced against third parties. The court was required to determine whether there was an arguable case for Cai to enforce the guarantee against Tsang.

The court examined whether there was an arguable case for Cai to enforce the guarantee against Tsang. It considered whether the guarantee was enforceable against Tsang, and whether it was void, unjust, or unenforceable. The court also considered whether Cai’s conduct prevented the guarantee from being enforced against third parties. The court found that there was an arguable case for Cai to enforce the guarantee against Tsang, as the terms of the guarantee were not void, unjust, or unenforceable. Furthermore, the court found that Cai’s conduct did not prevent the guarantee from being enforced against third parties.

The court dismissed the notice of motion on the basis that there was an arguable case for Cai to enforce the guarantee against Tsang. The court found that the guarantee was enforceable against Tsang, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the guarantee was void, unjust, or unenforceable. Furthermore, the court found that Cai’s conduct did not prevent the guarantee from being enforced against third parties. The court held that there was an arguable case for Cai to enforce the guarantee against Tsang, and that the notice of motion should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the notice of motion, finding that there was an arguable case for Cai to enforce the guarantee against Tsang. The court held that the guarantee was enforceable against Tsang, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the guarantee was void, unjust, or unenforceable. Furthermore, the court found that Cai’s conduct did not prevent the guarantee from being enforced against third parties. The court ordered that the notice of motion be dismissed, with no orders as to costs.