10 Jun 2016
On the evidence the cheques were issued as conditional deposits to be used only after the defendant obtained compensation; the dates on the cheques were materially altered without the drawer's consent and the plaintiff failed to prove authorized alteration, therefore the material alterations invalidated the cheques and the plaintiff's claim fails.
25 Mar 2015
The judge found no real or bona fide defence: the defendant admitted issuance and use of the card and did not dispute the sum claimed in open court; defendant's claims of tacit agreement/estoppel and requirement for original documents failed as a matter of law; the Bills of Exchange Ordinance is inapplicable to credit card debt; plaintiff proved authority to collect under its card agreement; consequently summary judgment was justified and the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out.
25 Jun 2013
The signed blank cheque was an unconditional and enforceable promise to pay in Hong Kong; the defendant's challenge that the underlying Macau obligation was unenforceable did not create a triable issue nor render the cheque void; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and the stay refused.
3 May 2013
The claim based on a dishonoured cheque is a separate and valid cause of action under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance irrespective of the cheque's stated purpose as a guarantee, and there was insufficient basis to conclude the present proceedings were barred by the PRC judgment or constituted an abuse of process; accordingly the defendant's strike out application was dismissed.
16 Aug 2002
The court found the cheques formed part of a settlement (thus constituted consideration), the defendant repeatedly requested non-presentation and promised replacement payments which amounted to an implied waiver of presentment, the plaintiff gave effective notice of dishonour, and there was no evidence supporting any deduction for remedial works; accordingly the defendant was liable on the dishonoured cheque for $80,000 with interest and costs.
7 Nov 1997
The blank indorsements did not render the cheques irregular on their face; the Plaintiff qualified as a holder in due course relying on statutory presumptions and evidence of value and good faith; therefore personal defenses alleged against prior parties did not defeat the Plaintiff's claim and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff on the three cheques.
14 Jan 1985
The court preferred the plaintiff's factual account, found the defendant failed to prove non est factum, misrepresentation or duress, but concluded the plaintiff did not comply with Money Lenders Ordinance s18(1)(b) because the prescribed summary was not provided; consequently the promissory note and associated cheque were unenforceable under s18(1) but, exercising the s18(3) discretion and weighing equities and plaintiff's procedural deficiencies, the court enforced one half of the principal and disallowed interest prior to judgment.