KAI FAT ENGINEERING LTD. v. EAST SEA (HOLDINGS) LTD.

KAI FAT ENGINEERING LTD. v. EAST SEA (HOLDINGS) LTD.

The cheques were unconditional written orders for payment; the defendants' oral condition evidence was inadmissible to vary those unconditional instruments; there was no credible proof of failure of consideration; accordingly the Order 14 r.3 judgment for the plaintiffs was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
KAI FAT ENGINEERING LTD. v. EAST SEA (HOLDINGS) LTD.
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: KAI FAT ENGINEERING LIMITED trading as KAI FAT GLASS & MIRROR ENGINEERING COMPANY; Defendant/appellant: EAST SEA (HOLDINGS) LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 October 1995
Case Number
HCA3079/1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (order 14 Rule 3 Judgment) / Judgment on Appeal (in Chambers)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Dishonoured Cheques, Order 14 Rule 3, Failure of Consideration, Parol Evidence Rule, Admissibility of Affidavit Evidence
Source Language
en
Contract Commercial Law Civil Procedure Negotiable Instruments Evidence Dishonoured Cheques Order 14 Rule 3 Failure of Consideration +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAI FAT ENGINEERING LIMITED trading as KAI FAT GLASS & MIRROR ENGINEERING COMPANY

Plaintiff/respondent

EAST SEA (HOLDINGS) LIMITED

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (order 14 Rule 3 Judgment) / Judgment on Appeal (in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the undated cheques were unconditional orders for payment or subject to an oral condition
  2. 2 Whether affidavit evidence seeking to introduce a defeasance condition to written cheques is admissible
  3. 3 Whether there was failure of consideration for the cheques

Ratio Decidendi

The cheques were unconditional written orders for payment; the defendants' oral condition evidence was inadmissible to vary those unconditional instruments; there was no credible proof of failure of consideration; accordingly the Order 14 r.3 judgment for the plaintiffs was upheld and the appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment under Order 14 rule 3 for the plaintiffs in the sum of $800,000.00 confirmed.