Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bills of exchange

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2022

CANARA BANK v. GRACE ON LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1759/2019

The appeal was dismissed because the judge found the defendants’ forgery defence inherently implausible and unsupported by cogent and compelling evidence, delayed in being raised, lacking particulars or police report, inconsistent with contemporaneous documents (including demands and a July 2018 company letter) and thus did not raise a triable issue to defeat summary judgment; master’s summary judgment was therefore upheld.
21 Nov 2022

HALLER AG AND ANOTHER v. VESTEY INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1743
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP85/2022

The Court held that the necessary or proper party gateway was not satisfied because there was no real issue between the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs could reasonably ask the court to try (the real dispute lay with the 2nd defendant); because the case therefore did not properly fall within Order 11 rule 1(1)(c) the judge's forum non conveniens conclusion was vitiated; and this Court lacked jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal on the stay-to-arbitration point under s20(9) so that ground failed for want of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly leave to serve out and the se…
4 Mar 2022

HALLER AG AND ANOTHER v. HALLER AG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 652
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2988/2018

Summons dismissed. The court held plaintiffs validly relied on the 'necessary or proper party' gateway to serve D2 out of jurisdiction and the Service Out Order and 1st Extension Order were not tainted by material non-disclosure; there was material non-disclosure in respect of the 2nd Extension Order but the court exercised discretion to re-grant the extension on the same terms while awarding indemnity costs for re-grant; there was no prima facie case that the CIETAC arbitration clause existed such as to mandate a stay under s.20 AO; and Hong Kong is the clearly appropriate forum for trial be…
24 Aug 2021

YANCROWN LTD v. CHAN WAI PIU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA527/2021

Summary judgment was refused and the plaintiff's application dismissed because triable issues exist arising from a prior decision that the underlying loans may be unenforceable under s23 MLO; the cheques are inextricably linked to those loans and their enforceability (including failure of consideration and potential need to exercise s23 discretion) cannot be resolved summarily; continuation of the action would be abusive and risks inconsistent or duplicative judgments, so the action is stayed pending final determination of the existing proceedings.
20 Jan 2021

T v. W

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 160
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA366/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because the Defendant demonstrated more than fanciful prospects of success on an arguable and important point of law—namely whether CA Pacific's presumption should continue or be displaced by a one-stop approach—and the construction of the arbitration clause raised issues with merits sufficient to justify a Court of Appeal hearing; accordingly leave was appropriate under the reasonable prospect test and the interests of justice.
11 Jan 2021

CHAN SIN YEE v. CHAN SAU SHAN

Citation

[2021] HKDC 31
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3271/2019

The court held the fraud exception was not engaged and granted summary judgment because the plaintiff provided valuable consideration by entering the Last Agreement and accepting the cheque as repayment of the principal; under BOEO s30(1) consideration is prima facie presumed and the undisputed facts established that the cheque was delivered for that purpose, so the defendant's total failure of consideration and conditional delivery defences failed and BOEO ss26/26A were inapplicable.
24 Dec 2018

周軍英 v. 樊少皇 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2837
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA202/2017

The judge held that D2 raised credible, triable issues of duress supported by contemporaneous communications and surrounding circumstances; the evidence could not be resolved on affidavits and it was inappropriate to grant summary judgment under Order 14 on the dishonoured cheque; accordingly D2 was granted unconditional leave to defend.
29 Oct 2014

XU ZIMING v. RUIFENG PETROLEUM CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

XU ZIMING v. RUIFENG PETROLEUM CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA450/2013

The court held the defendant failed to show the Loan Repayment Agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause applied to the separate Promissory Note and cheques because there was no express manifestation that negotiable instruments were covered; the Promissory Note contains an express non-exclusive jurisdiction clause submitting the defendant to Hong Kong; the defendant failed to demonstrate triable issues or a plausible defence; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal and leave was refused with costs.
27 Aug 2014

XU ZIMING v. RUIFENG PETROLEUM CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

XU ZIMING v. RUIFENG PETROLEUM CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA450/2013

The stay was refused because the defendant failed to identify any arguable defence on the promissory note and cheques and therefore there were no real issues to be tried elsewhere; further the defendant is bound by the promissory note's non‑exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clause and has not discharged the heavy burden to show that Guangzhou is clearly a more appropriate forum.
22 Mar 2013

REGAL WISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YICK SHING CONTRACTORS LTD

Citation

REGAL WISE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YICK SHING CONTRACTORS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3493/2012

The defendant failed to show the Second Action was an abuse of process or duplicitous: the cheques in question had not given rise to an accrued right of action at the time of the First Action because they were not dishonoured until presented on their due dates; the First and Second Actions assert distinct causes and remedies and need not be struck out; a joint trial is appropriate and proportionate under the Civil Justice Reform; appeal dismissed and master's directions upheld.