DAVID HSU v. PIONEER ELASTIC FABRIC LTD AND ANOTHER

DAVID HSU v. PIONEER ELASTIC FABRIC LTD AND ANOTHER

The 1st defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or properly particularised allegation of fraud; the plaintiff's evidence, including the 2nd defendant's statutory declaration and corroboration, established that the loans were obtained for the company's benefit and consideration existed; therefore leave to defend under Order 19 should not have been granted and the appeal is allowed.

Citation
DAVID HSU v. PIONEER ELASTIC FABRIC LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: David Hsu; 1st Defendant/respondent: Pioneer Elastic Fabric Limited; 2nd Defendant/respondent: Chu Sze Fung alias Chu Su Fung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 January 1983
Case Number
HCA5929/1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Cheque Dishonour/negotiable Instruments / Appeal From Master's Order 19 Decision on Leave to Defend
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Dishonoured Cheques, Order 19 Leave to Defend, Bona Fide Defence, Consideration, Authority of Company Director, Allegation of Fraud
Source Language
EN
Civil Commercial Company Law Procedural Law Negotiable Instruments Dishonoured Cheques Order 19 Leave to Defend Bona Fide Defence +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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Hsu

Plaintiff/appellant

Pioneer Elastic Fabric Limited

1st Defendant/respondent

Chu Sze Fung alias Chu Su Fung

2nd Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Cheque Dishonour/negotiable Instruments / Appeal From Master's Order 19 Decision on Leave to Defend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unconditional leave to the 1st defendant to defend should have been granted under Order 19
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant demonstrated a bona fide defence on the merits
  3. 3 Whether the cheques were issued for the benefit of the company or in settlement of the director's personal gambling debts

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant failed to demonstrate any bona fide defence or properly particularised allegation of fraud; the plaintiff's evidence, including the 2nd defendant's statutory declaration and corroboration, established that the loans were obtained for the company's benefit and consideration existed; therefore leave to defend under Order 19 should not have been granted and the appeal is allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the learned Master granting unconditional leave to the 1st defendant to defend set aside
  • Judgment to be entered against the 1st defendant for the sum claimed with interest and costs