NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER

On the evidence the Court found the questioned signature on the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was not signed by Chung (forensic evidence showed hesitation, retouching and other indicia of forgery; the defence witness Kwan was not credible and his account inconsistent), therefore the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was null and void; consequently Wholesale Limited's claim was dismissed and the counterclaim for possession, declarations of forgery, injunctions, damages, indemnity and account of profits against Wholesale Limited and Kwan succeeded while the claim against Leung failed for insufficient evidence.

Citation
NON-NO FASHION WHOLESALE LTD. v. CHUNG KAM WING AND ANOTHER
Parties
Plaintiff (original Action) / 1st Defendant (counterclaim): Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited; Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim): Chung Kam Wing; Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim): Shu Man Lee; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Kwan Sing Kwong; 3rd Defendant (counterclaim): Leung Lai Kuen
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 January 2001
Case Number
HCA20335/1998
Procedural Posture
Civil – Tenancy/possession and Fraud (forgery) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Original claim by Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited dismissed; counterclaim by Chung Kam Wing and Shu Man Lee allowed against Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited and Kwan Sing Kwong in part; counterclaim dismissed against Leung Lai Kuen.
Legal Topics
Tenancy Agreement Validity, Forgery of Signature, Trespass/mesne Profits, Injunctions, Damages, Account of Profits, Costs on Indemnity Basis
Source Language
EN

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited

Plaintiff (original Action) / 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Chung Kam Wing

Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Shu Man Lee

Defendant (original Action) and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

Kwan Sing Kwong

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Leung Lai Kuen

3rd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil – Tenancy/possession and Fraud (forgery) / Judgment (reasons for Judgment Delivered)

  1. 1 Whether the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was valid and signed by Chung
  2. 2 Whether the signature on the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was forged
  3. 3 Whether Wholesale Limited and Kwan committed fraud using the corporate vehicle

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the Court found the questioned signature on the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was not signed by Chung (forensic evidence showed hesitation, retouching and other indicia of forgery; the defence witness Kwan was not credible and his account inconsistent), therefore the 1996 Tenancy Agreement was null and void; consequently Wholesale Limited's claim was dismissed and the counterclaim for possession, declarations of forgery, injunctions, damages, indemnity and account of profits against Wholesale Limited and Kwan succeeded while the claim against Leung failed for insufficient evidence.

Court Disposition

Original claim by Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited dismissed; counterclaim by Chung Kam Wing and Shu Man Lee allowed against Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited and Kwan Sing Kwong in part; counterclaim dismissed against Leung Lai Kuen.

Orders

  • Claim by Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited (original action) dismissed.
  • Judgment for the plaintiffs by counterclaim (Chung Kam Wing and Shu Man Lee) against the 1st defendant by counterclaim (Non-No Fashion Wholesale Limited) for possession of the premises known as Workshop B5 on the Ground Floor of Block B, Hong Kong Industrial Centre, Nos.489-491 Castle Peak Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong.