HO SHUI CHEE v. HU XUAN MING RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

HO SHUI CHEE v. HU XUAN MING RAYMOND AND ANOTHER

The court found the cheques were delivered operatively as security and payable on demand; the defendants' oral agreement claiming conditional delivery to defeat liability was inadmissible as contradicting the written instruments and was inherently unbelievable on the facts; the cheques were supported by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HO SHUI CHEE v. HU XUAN MING RAYMOND AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: Ho Shui Chee; 1st Defendant: Hu Xuan Ming Raymond; 2nd Defendant: Li Si Ting
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 June 2012
Case Number
HCA1559/2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Summary Judgment / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master De Souza's summary judgment order upheld in its entirety
Legal Topics
Dishonoured Cheques, Conditional Delivery (escrow), Parol Evidence Rule, Summary Judgment, Indorsement/endorsement, Holder in Due Course
Source Language
en
Negotiable Instruments Contract Law Civil Procedure Dishonoured Cheques Conditional Delivery (escrow) Parol Evidence Rule Summary Judgment Indorsement/endorsement +1 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Shui Chee

Plaintiff

Hu Xuan Ming Raymond

1st Defendant

Li Si Ting

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Summary Judgment / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral evidence establishing conditional delivery of undated cheques is admissible to defeat liability on the cheques
  2. 2 Whether the loans and cheques were repayable on demand and supported by consideration
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd defendant is liable as an indorser and whether the plaintiff is a holder in due course

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the cheques were delivered operatively as security and payable on demand; the defendants' oral agreement claiming conditional delivery to defeat liability was inadmissible as contradicting the written instruments and was inherently unbelievable on the facts; the cheques were supported by consideration (the loans) and the second defendant signed as indorser such that the plaintiff, as holder in due course of at least two cheques, was entitled to summary judgment on the loans claim for HK$1,000,000; only cheque no. 483722 raised a triable issue but that did not prevent summary judgment on the overall loan claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master De Souza's summary judgment order upheld in its entirety

Orders

  • Summary judgment in favour of plaintiff for HK$1,000,000 (loan principal) plus interest and costs as per the order below
  • The appeal is dismissed and the entirety of Master De Souza's order (including the costs order) stands