LEE TAK WAN v. CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LTD.

LEE TAK WAN v. CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LTD.

Applications dismissed because applicants failed to establish a genuine triable issue: their account of a binding oral settlement was inherently improbable and contradicted by contemporaneous documentary evidence and internal reports; alleged part‑payment did not perform conditional terms of the alleged agreement and respondent expressly reserved rights in a deed of release; the alleged settlement lacked consideration so accord and satisfaction did not apply and estoppel failed for lack of detriment; no satisfactory reason was given for delay and leave to proceed out of time was not obtained.

Citation
LEE TAK WAN v. CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LTD.
Parties
Applicant/debtor: LEE TAK WAN; Applicant/debtor: YIP CHAK LAM; Respondent/creditor: CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LIMITED
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 November 2000
Case Number
HCSD14/2000
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance / Decision After Full Hearing in Chambers
Outcome
Both applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Setting Aside, Judgment Debt, Extension of Time, Accord and Satisfaction, Estoppel, Mortgage Enforcement
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Contract Civil Procedure Property Equity Statutory Demand Setting Aside Judgment Debt +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE TAK WAN

Applicant/debtor

YIP CHAK LAM

Applicant/debtor

CHEKIANG FIRST BANK LIMITED

Respondent/creditor

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand Under the Bankruptcy Ordinance / Decision After Full Hearing in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to make applications out of time under Bankruptcy Rules
  2. 2 Whether there exists a genuine triable issue disputing the debt for purposes of setting aside a statutory demand
  3. 3 Whether an alleged oral settlement extinguished the judgment debt

Ratio Decidendi

Applications dismissed because applicants failed to establish a genuine triable issue: their account of a binding oral settlement was inherently improbable and contradicted by contemporaneous documentary evidence and internal reports; alleged part‑payment did not perform conditional terms of the alleged agreement and respondent expressly reserved rights in a deed of release; the alleged settlement lacked consideration so accord and satisfaction did not apply and estoppel failed for lack of detriment; no satisfactory reason was given for delay and leave to proceed out of time was not obtained.

Court Disposition

Both applications dismissed

Orders

  • Applications to set aside statutory demands dismissed with costs to the respondent, to be taxed if not agreed