HongKong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (Respondent) v Bettas Limited (Appellant) (Bahamas)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Linked cases
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

JCPC/2025/0055/A

Jurisdiction

Bahamas

Parties

Appellant(s)

Bettas Limited

Respondent(s)

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (A Company Incorporated in The Hongkong special Administrative Region)

Issue

Did the judge err in ordering HSBC to repay to Bettas the funds in its HSBC account together with both: (i) interest (to be assessed if not agreed) from the commencement of proceedings in 2011 until the date of judgment; and (ii) statutory interest from the date of judgment until the date of payment? Did the Court of Appeal err in setting aside the judge’s costs order?

Facts

HSBC is a bank registered in Hong Kong. Bettas is a Liberian company. In 1986, Bettas opened an account at HSBC’s branch in The Bahamas and deposited $26.4 million in the account. In 2011, Mr Adrian Kundanmal (“AK”), the son of one of Bettas’s founders, contacted HSBC seeking a statement for the account. AK claimed to be a director (and sole shareholder of) Bettas. HSBC was not satisfied that AK had authority to act on behalf of Bettas. HSBC refused to provide a statement without a court order requiring it to do so. In 2011, Bettas sued HSBC for, inter alia, a declaration that Bettas was entitled to repayment of the funds in the account. In 2023, the judge found in favour of Bettas, concluding that AK had had authority to act on behalf of Bettas and making the declaration sought. The judge’s order also awarded Bettas: (i) “interest on the funds held by [HSBC], from the commencement of proceedings to the date of the Judgment; such interest to be heard and determined by a Judge in Chambers, if not agreed”; and (ii) “interest at the statutory rate of 6.25% per annum from the date of Judgment to the date of payment on the funds held to its order”.1 Moreover, the judge’s order awarded Bettas its costs of and incidental to the proceedings. HSBC appealed on various grounds, but did not appeal against elements (i) or (ii) of the judge’s order. The Court of Appeal dismissed the substantive parts of HSBC’s appeal, and did not vary (i) or (ii). The Court of Appeal also set aside the ruling awarding Bettas its costs of the Supreme Court action and instead required each party to bear its own costs in respect of that action. HSBC then sought permission to appeal on the single issue of whether the judge erred in ordering both (i) and (ii). The Court of Appeal granted HSBC leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. Additionally, Bettas seeks permission to cross-appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision to set aside the judge’s costs order in respect of the Supreme Court action.