Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cheques

Legal area

Court

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.
12 Apr 2006

CHEUNG KOWK SUN t/a GOLDEN TEX TRADING CO AND ANOTHER v. HO WING SUN t/a FU WO PLASTIC FTY

Citation

CHEUNG KOWK SUN t/a GOLDEN TEX TRADING CO AND ANOTHER v. HO WING SUN t/a FU WO PLASTIC FTY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ776/2005

The court concluded the defendant's defences had no real prospect of success: the pleaded collateral agreement was vague and did not bind the 2nd Plaintiff; the defendant's conduct (selling goods to scrap dealers) indicated acceptance and passing of property, providing consideration for the cheques; and the counterclaim/set-off did not prevent entry of judgment. Judgment for the 2nd Plaintiff for US$70,860.94 with interest was therefore entered.
29 Aug 2003

WIN HOME ENTERPRISES LTD v. ACME PLAN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

WIN HOME ENTERPRISES LTD v. ACME PLAN INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA849/2003

Cheques are unconditional negotiable instruments; the defendant could not rely on oral collateral terms or subsequent events to convert them into conditional payment instruments; parol evidence to defeat the written instrument was inadmissible and there was no triable issue, so summary judgment was properly entered and the appeal must be dismissed.
24 Oct 1994

GLOMEX TRADING CO. LTD. v. BILLION PEARL INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

GLOMEX TRADING CO. LTD. v. BILLION PEARL INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3964/1994

The court allowed the defendant to defend the cheques on the basis of a reasonably arguable total failure of consideration because the kits had been purchased for use with equipment which the plaintiff failed to bring into production and for which technical know-how was not transferred; accordingly the default judgment was set aside on condition the defendant pays HK$273,515.38 into court within four weeks to abide the result of trial, with liberty to apply if unable to pay.
10 Jul 1984

SOUTH OCEAN TOWEL WEAVIING FACTORY (suing as a firm) v. HING FAT WEAVING FACTORY (sued as a firm)

Citation

SOUTH OCEAN TOWEL WEAVIING FACTORY (suing as a firm) v. HING FAT WEAVING FACTORY (sued as a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2591/1984

The judge found no evidence of accord and satisfaction as to the enumerated cheques and granted judgment for the plaintiff on those cheques; for two cheques where the facts were bizarre or disputed (cheque No. 856073 for 30,000 and cheque No. 296202 for 45,000) the judge granted conditional leave to defend requiring payment into Court or into a joint interest‑bearing solicitors' account pending trial; omitted invoices constitute a matter for counterclaim and cannot defeat the primary action on the cheques.
1 Oct 1982

CHAN WAN-KAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHAN WAN-KAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC884/1982

The convictions were quashed because the prosecution failed to prove the essential element of evasion by deception — there was no evidence that the post-dated cheques induced the complainant to delay action to recover the debt, particularly in relation to the two $25,000 cheques which the complainant did not expect to be presented.
22 Mar 1977

KWOK WING v. MAYTEX TRADING CO. (A FIRM)

Citation

KWOK WING v. MAYTEX TRADING CO. (A FIRM)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV60/1976

The Court held the rubber stamp impression together with the appellant's signature formed a composite signature of the company; the appellant signed merely to authenticate the company's stamp and did not incur personal liability as drawer; s.26(1) therefore did not apply to render him personally liable.
20 Oct 1973

KEN KEE SECURITIES CO v. WONG YING CHEONG

Citation

KEN KEE SECURITIES CO v. WONG YING CHEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/1973

The appeal is allowed because there was a triable issue whether the cheques were delivered subject to a condition (escrow) so that they were incomplete bills of exchange and not enforceable summarily; accordingly summary judgment under Order XIV was inappropriate after a bona fide defence was delivered with the plaintiffs' consent; the Registrar's order is set aside and unconditional leave to defend is granted.