MAN-TECH ELECTRONICS LTD. v. TONING ELECTRONIC CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

MAN-TECH ELECTRONICS LTD. v. TONING ELECTRONIC CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER

The court found the purported extension was not a binding agreement (no compliance with the conditional requirement of delivering post-dated cheques and no evidence of a binding 10 May agreement pleaded or credibly established); therefore the surety was not discharged and summary judgment was appropriate for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant under the guarantee.

Citation
MAN-TECH ELECTRONICS LTD. v. TONING ELECTRONIC CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff: MAN-TECH ELECTRONICS LIMITED; 1st Defendant: TONING ELECTRONIC COMPANY LIMITED; 2nd Defendant: WONG MING KU, PAUL
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 November 1999
Case Number
HCA9203/1999
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment (order 14) / Application for Summary Judgment in the Court of First Instance
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant.
Legal Topics
Guarantee, Surety Discharged by Creditor Giving Time, Summary Judgment Threshold (o.14), Dishonoured Cheques
Source Language
EN
Guarantee and Suretyship Contract Law Civil Procedure Commercial Law Guarantee Surety Discharged by Creditor Giving Time Summary Judgment Threshold (o.14) Dishonoured Cheques

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAN-TECH ELECTRONICS LIMITED

Plaintiff

TONING ELECTRONIC COMPANY LIMITED

1st Defendant

WONG MING KU, PAUL

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment (order 14) / Application for Summary Judgment in the Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Defendant is liable under the 8 February 1999 guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the Plaintiff's offer/extension of time discharged the surety without consent
  3. 3 Whether the defence asserted is a credible triable issue under O.14

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the purported extension was not a binding agreement (no compliance with the conditional requirement of delivering post-dated cheques and no evidence of a binding 10 May agreement pleaded or credibly established); therefore the surety was not discharged and summary judgment was appropriate for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant under the guarantee.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff against the 2nd Defendant for HK$596,596.25