Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conditional delivery

Legal area

Court

8 Feb 2021

CHINA STATE FOUNDATION ENGINEERING LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT16/2020

The court concluded that the defendant's certified claim for liquidated and ascertained damages (as calculated under the contractual clause and certified by the Architect up to 31 August 2019) constituted a liquidated sum capable of being set off against the plaintiff's claim under the dishonoured cheque, and therefore granted leave to defend limited to the set-off; the defendant's alleged conditional delivery defence lacked credibility and did not disclose an arguable triable issue, so leave to defend on that ground was refused.
12 Feb 2016

ATLAS PLASTIC PRODUCTS (HK) CO LTD v. ATLAS DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

ATLAS PLASTIC PRODUCTS (HK) CO LTD v. ATLAS DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ99/2013

The judge found the defendant's draft grounds of appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success: the defendant failed to establish conditional delivery or admissibility of the Letter of Confirmation; the judge's factual findings and credibility assessments (including rejection of the defendant's version) were supported by the evidence; no other reason in the interests of justice existed to grant leave; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
18 Dec 2015

WU HAN RONG v. CHAN HOR YEE HILDA

Citation

WU HAN RONG v. CHAN HOR YEE HILDA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV135/2015

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant failed to raise a triable issue: her loan narrative was inherently implausible, poorly pleaded and unsupported by contemporaneous documentary evidence (and adverse inferences arose), the duress allegation was temporally inconsistent with cheque presentation and other facts, and summary judgment was therefore properly entered; the court was entitled to correct the judgment sum to the accurate total.
24 Aug 2015

SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD v. KIT WANG GROUP (CHINA) LTD

Citation

SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD v. KIT WANG GROUP (CHINA) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1779/2014

The court held the parol evidence rule applied and there was no admissible or credible evidence of a contemporaneous oral condition to the cheque; the alleged oral agreement was inherently improbable and unsubstantiated and the total failure of consideration defence was untenable; therefore the Master’s summary judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.
25 Jun 2007

CHIN WUI LEONG v. TECH TEAM DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHIN WUI LEONG v. TECH TEAM DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ350/2007

Defendant's alleged defences were unsupported by particulars or evidence and amounted to bare assertions; plaintiff produced contemporaneous invoices and bank statements showing agency and payment history establishing consideration; defendant failed to discharge the burden of showing a credible defence and therefore summary judgment was warranted for the plaintiff; applications by defendant for security for costs and leave to appeal were dismissed.
13 Sept 2006

CHEUNG MAN KIT v. TAI KAM HO

Citation

CHEUNG MAN KIT v. TAI KAM HO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4222/2005

Defendant failed to adduce credible evidence that Yau or Lung were acting as the plaintiff's agents at the times material to the alleged misrepresentations and the receipt of the cheque, and failed to prove a collateral contract or condition precedent to allow extrinsic evidence; accordingly there was no bona fide defence or triable issue and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the deposit together with interest and costs.
26 Jan 2006

EUROSTAR (FAST EAST) LTD v. ALBERT TSANG JEWELRY DESIGN LTD

Citation

EUROSTAR (FAST EAST) LTD v. ALBERT TSANG JEWELRY DESIGN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2774/2005

The contemporaneous written acknowledgement demonstrated the cheques were issued for settlement and became operative on delivery; there was no evidence cheques were held in escrow and s21(3) presumption of valid unconditional delivery was unrebutted; therefore oral evidence purporting to impose a condition was excluded as inconsistent with an operative bill and the defendant had no realistic prospect of success on appeal; leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
24 Nov 2005

EUROSTAR (FAST EAST) LTD v. ALBERT TSANG JEWELRY DESIGN LTD

Citation

EUROSTAR (FAST EAST) LTD v. ALBERT TSANG JEWELRY DESIGN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2774/2005

The acknowledgment signed by the parties showed the cheques were delivered operatively to settle outstanding ledger amounts; the defendant's account of conditional delivery was inadmissible oral evidence that sought to qualify the cheques and was not credible; the statutory presumption under s30(1) was not rebutted; therefore no triable issue existed and summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for HK$950,000 plus interest and costs.
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.
7 Mar 2003

LIAN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. v. SAMAD MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE t/a GAZI TRADE INTERNATIONAL

Citation

LIAN INDUSTRIAL CO., LTD. v. SAMAD MOHAMMAD SIDDIQUE t/a GAZI TRADE INTERNATIONAL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4871/2002

Although the general rule disallows oral variation of an unconditional cheque, there was sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue whether the parties later agreed that the cheque would be returned (or payment suspended), so the Master's summary judgment for $134,202.70 was set aside and the matter must proceed to trial on that issue.