LEUNG KIN v. KAM WAH FILM CO (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

LEUNG KIN v. KAM WAH FILM CO (A FIRM) AND OTHERS

Where money was advanced contemporaneously with and solely in consideration of an unstamped promissory note, there was no antecedent debt and the plaintiff cannot sue for the loan without circumventing section 24(1) of the Stamp Ordinance; consequently the action was misconceived and must be struck out.

Citation
LEUNG KIN v. KAM WAH FILM CO (A FIRM) AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: LEUNG Kin; 1st Defendant: Kam Wah Film Co. (a firm); 2nd Defendant: Acme Studio Photo Service (a firm); 3rd Defendant: Ho Bor
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 October 1968
Case Number
DCCJ4030/1968
Procedural Posture
Civil Debt (money Lent) Promissory Note Dispute / Trial (strike Out Application)
Outcome
Action struck out
Legal Topics
Promissory Note, Unstamped Instrument, Section 24 Stamp Ordinance, Consideration, Remedy for Breach of Contract, Admissibility of Documents, Strike Out
Source Language
EN
Stamp Duty Contract Bills and Notes Evidence Civil Procedure Promissory Note Unstamped Instrument Section 24 Stamp Ordinance +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEUNG Kin

Plaintiff

Kam Wah Film Co. (a firm)

1st Defendant

Acme Studio Photo Service (a firm)

2nd Defendant

Ho Bor

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Debt (money Lent) Promissory Note Dispute / Trial (strike Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unstamped promissory note prevents any action for money lent under section 24(1) of the Stamp Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether a loan made contemporaneously with and supported only by an unstamped promissory note constitutes an antecedent debt giving rise to an action on the consideration
  3. 3 Whether an unstamped instrument may be admitted in evidence for any collateral purpose

Ratio Decidendi

Where money was advanced contemporaneously with and solely in consideration of an unstamped promissory note, there was no antecedent debt and the plaintiff cannot sue for the loan without circumventing section 24(1) of the Stamp Ordinance; consequently the action was misconceived and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Action struck out

Orders

  • Action struck out