NG SIU KEI v. CHONG MEE MEE

NG SIU KEI v. CHONG MEE MEE

The plaintiff took the cheque unconditionally because there was no evidence the condition (if any) was communicated to him; Connie was acting as agent for the defendant in relation to the cheque, so the defendant's instruction did not bind the plaintiff; therefore the defendant is liable to pay the dishonoured cheque.

Citation
NG SIU KEI v. CHONG MEE MEE
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action): NG SIU KEI; Defendant (original Action): CHONG MEE MEE; Plaintiff (by Counterclaim): CHONG MEE MEE; 2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim): CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2000
Case Number
HCA5292/1998
Procedural Posture
Action on Dishonoured Cheque (bill of Exchange) Arising From a Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement / Judgment at Trial (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$200,000 with interest and costs
Legal Topics
Dishonoured Cheque, Conditional Delivery, Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement, Agency and Notice, Countermanded Cheque, Initial Deposit
Source Language
EN
Bills of Exchange Contract Agency Property Law Civil Procedure Dishonoured Cheque Conditional Delivery Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement +3 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG SIU KEI

Plaintiff (original Action)

CHONG MEE MEE

Defendant (original Action)

CHONG MEE MEE

Plaintiff (by Counterclaim)

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LIMITED

2nd Defendant (by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Action on Dishonoured Cheque (bill of Exchange) Arising From a Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement / Judgment at Trial (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cheque was delivered subject to a condition which prevented enforcement by the payee
  2. 2 Whether the agent's knowledge of a conditional delivery could be imputed to the payee
  3. 3 Whether there was total failure of consideration or other defence to payment on the cheque

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff took the cheque unconditionally because there was no evidence the condition (if any) was communicated to him; Connie was acting as agent for the defendant in relation to the cheque, so the defendant's instruction did not bind the plaintiff; therefore the defendant is liable to pay the dishonoured cheque.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff for HK$200,000 with interest and costs

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant for HK$200,000
  • Interest at judgment rate from 8 January 1998 until payment