FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LUI YAT LUN AND ANOTHER

FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LUI YAT LUN AND ANOTHER

The court accepted the admissible bank records as prima facie evidence under s.20 and rejected the defendants' lower income assertions as not credible; on the evidence the court inferred the 1st defendant earned not less than $6,500 per month and ordered him to pay $3,000 per month, and calculated the 2nd defendant's available surplus and ordered her to pay $400 per month toward the judgment debt.

Citation
FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LUI YAT LUN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (judgment Creditor): Far East Bank Limited; 1st Defendant (1st Judgment Debtor): Lui Yat Lun; 2nd Defendant (2nd Judgment Debtor): Cheng Kit Yue
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
4 May 1984
Case Number
HCA4212/1982
Procedural Posture
Debt Recovery / Judgment Enforcement / Post‑judgment Enforcement Hearing and Oral Examination Under O.49 B
Outcome
Judgment enforcement granted in part: instalment payments ordered from both defendants and costs awarded to plaintiff
Legal Topics
Judgment Creditor Enforcement, Continuing Guarantee, Oral Examination Under O.49 B, Admissibility of Bank Records S.20 Evidence Ordinance, Instalment Orders, Credibility Findings
Source Language
EN
Civil Debt Recovery Enforcement Evidence Judgment Creditor Enforcement Continuing Guarantee Oral Examination Under O.49 B Admissibility of Bank Records S.20 Evidence Ordinance +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Far East Bank Limited

Plaintiff (judgment Creditor)

Lui Yat Lun

1st Defendant (1st Judgment Debtor)

Cheng Kit Yue

2nd Defendant (2nd Judgment Debtor)

Procedural Posture

Debt Recovery / Judgment Enforcement / Post‑judgment Enforcement Hearing and Oral Examination Under O.49 B

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bank internal records (photocopies) were admissible under s.20 of the Evidence Ordinance and could be treated as prima facie evidence of the 1st defendant's income
  2. 2 Whether the defendants had capacity to pay the judgment debt and what instalment amounts were appropriate
  3. 3 Assessment of credibility of oral testimony versus documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court accepted the admissible bank records as prima facie evidence under s.20 and rejected the defendants' lower income assertions as not credible; on the evidence the court inferred the 1st defendant earned not less than $6,500 per month and ordered him to pay $3,000 per month, and calculated the 2nd defendant's available surplus and ordered her to pay $400 per month toward the judgment debt.

Court Disposition

Judgment enforcement granted in part: instalment payments ordered from both defendants and costs awarded to plaintiff

Orders

  • 2nd Defendant Cheng Kit Yue to pay $400 per month towards the judgment debt
  • 1st Defendant Lui Yat Lun to pay $3,000 per month, first payment on or before 1 May 1983 and monthly thereafter