EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. YING LUN ELECTRIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. YING LUN ELECTRIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The 1st defendant failed to particularise in affidavit the factual basis for alleging endorsement irregularity or lack of authority by the 2nd defendant, and an allegation of failure of consideration is not a defence against a holder in due course; accordingly the Registrar's grant of unconditional leave to defend was incorrect and summary judgment for the plaintiff on the two cheques was proper.

Citation
EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO LTD v. YING LUN ELECTRIC CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Edward Wong Finance Co. Ltd.; 1st Defendant: Ying Lun Electric Company Limited; 2nd Defendant: Hon Chun Ming trading as Ming Fat Electrical Factory
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
HCA3438/1977
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Dishonoured Cheques / Summary Judgment / Appeal Against Registrar's Decision Granting Unconditional Leave to Defend (high Court, in Chambers)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Registrar's decision set aside; summary judgment entered for plaintiff on the two cheques with costs
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Dishonoured Cheque, Holder in Due Course, Endorsement Authority, Irregular Endorsement, Order 14 Summons
Source Language
EN
Civil Procedure Negotiable Instruments Commercial Law Banking Law Summary Judgment Dishonoured Cheque Holder in Due Course Endorsement Authority +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Wong Finance Co. Ltd.

Plaintiff

Ying Lun Electric Company Limited

1st Defendant

Hon Chun Ming trading as Ming Fat Electrical Factory

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Dishonoured Cheques / Summary Judgment / Appeal Against Registrar's Decision Granting Unconditional Leave to Defend (high Court, in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant disclosed sufficient particulars in affidavit to support defence
  2. 2 Whether failure of consideration is a defence against a holder in due course
  3. 3 Whether endorsements were irregular and whether the 2nd defendant had authority to endorse

Ratio Decidendi

The 1st defendant failed to particularise in affidavit the factual basis for alleging endorsement irregularity or lack of authority by the 2nd defendant, and an allegation of failure of consideration is not a defence against a holder in due course; accordingly the Registrar's grant of unconditional leave to defend was incorrect and summary judgment for the plaintiff on the two cheques was proper.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Registrar's decision set aside; summary judgment entered for plaintiff on the two cheques with costs

Orders

  • Registrar's decision granting unconditional leave to the 1st defendant to defend is set aside
  • Summary judgment entered for the plaintiff in respect of the two dishonoured cheques