ARTCENTRE PRINTING CO. LTD. v. CHUN KIN CHUEN

ARTCENTRE PRINTING CO. LTD. v. CHUN KIN CHUEN

The defendant failed to demonstrate a defence with a real prospect of success to the action on the dishonoured cheque; alleged defects in the contracted printing work and unquantified or unliquidated counterclaims do not defeat a cheque claim, and oral evidence purporting to vary the unconditional written cheque is inadmissible; accordingly the setting aside order was unjustified and the default judgment was reinstated with costs.

Citation
ARTCENTRE PRINTING CO. LTD. v. CHUN KIN CHUEN
Parties
Claimant (applicant): Artcentre Printing Company Limited; Defendant (respondent): Chun Kin Chuen trading as Maharlika Express
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 June 2000
Case Number
HCSA4/2000
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) / Appeal Judgment (decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; default judgment reinstated
Legal Topics
Dishonoured Cheque, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Parol Evidence Rule, Failure of Consideration, Counterclaim, Costs
Source Language
EN
Civil Contract Law Banking Law Civil Procedure Dishonoured Cheque Setting Aside Default Judgment Parol Evidence Rule Failure of Consideration +2 more

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Artcentre Printing Company Limited

Claimant (applicant)

Chun Kin Chuen trading as Maharlika Express

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Tribunal Appeal to High Court (court of First Instance) / Appeal Judgment (decision on Application to Set Aside Default Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged defects in printed goods amount to a defence to an action on a dishonoured cheque
  2. 2 Whether the defendant provided a satisfactory explanation for the default and demonstrated a defence with a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether payment into court as a condition justified setting aside the default judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to demonstrate a defence with a real prospect of success to the action on the dishonoured cheque; alleged defects in the contracted printing work and unquantified or unliquidated counterclaims do not defeat a cheque claim, and oral evidence purporting to vary the unconditional written cheque is inadmissible; accordingly the setting aside order was unjustified and the default judgment was reinstated with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; default judgment reinstated

Orders

  • Default judgment dated 16 August 1999 reinstated
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to the claimant, to be taxed if not agreed