25 Jul 2022
The appeal is dismissed because the judge, conducting an actual rehearing, adopted the master's detailed reasoning rejecting all the defendant's grounds (no intention, no conditional delivery, no estoppel, no total lack of consideration) and the defendant advanced nothing further on appeal; summary judgment for the plaintiff is therefore upheld and costs awarded.
31 May 2016
The parol evidence rule applies to the cheque in issue; extrinsic oral evidence cannot be admitted to qualify the absolute undertaking on the cheque and, in any event, the alleged oral agreement is inherently implausible and does not raise a triable issue. The defence of total failure of consideration is premised on the same unbelievable oral agreement and is untenable. Therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff was properly granted and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Feb 2014
The court found on credibility and inherent probability that the parties had formed a binding sale agreement in or around May 2012 for the equipment listed in the plaintiff's handover lists, the defendant issued the HK$300,000 cheque in honour of that obligation, and the defendant failed to prove conditional delivery or total failure of consideration; consequently the Letter of Confirmation did not form part of the agreement and is inadmissible to vary the cheque, entitling the plaintiff to judgment for HK$300,000 plus interest and costs.
11 Jan 2011
Defendant's breach of the unless order was deliberate and contumelious; his asserted defences lack reasonable prospects of success because the alleged conditional delivery contradicts the written loan agreement and is barred by the parol evidence rule; the delay in applying to set aside was inexcusable and prejudicial; accordingly the default judgment was properly entered and the appeal must be dismissed.
7 Jan 2008
The defendant established an arguable defence of economic duress by prompt protest, the critical commercial importance of the order, and disputed ledger accuracy; those facts raise a triable issue such that summary judgment must be refused and the matter proceed to trial.
21 Aug 2006
The application for summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend was granted because there are disputed factual issues and an unsettled legal question on whether third‑party antecedent debt constitutes consideration under s27(1), together with disputed assertions about conditional delivery and the calculation of the claimed sum, all of which require trial.
19 Jun 2006
The defence of conditional delivery fails because the evidence attempting to qualify the written unconditional cheques was inadmissible and, on the merits, there was no common intention that operation of the Defendant's cheques be subject to the alleged conditions; the sums were advances to the Defendant personally and the Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the cheque.
15 Nov 2005
The parol evidence rule bars the Defendant from adducing oral evidence to establish conditions said to have been agreed at a later meeting that would vary the unconditional written terms of the Second Cheque; the written Statements only related to the earlier First Cheque and cannot alter the Second Cheque; the Defendant therefore cannot establish a defence of conditional delivery and the counterclaim does not defeat the cheque claim, so summary judgment for the Plaintiff is appropriate.
28 Dec 1999
Defendant failed to raise a triable issue: the cheques were unconditional written instruments and alleged oral conditions were inadmissible to vary their terms; allegations of duress were insufficiently particularised and the defendant's evidence was unsatisfactory; accordingly leave to defend was only justified if the defendant paid the full claimed amount into court within the time ordered.
17 Jan 1989
Court rejected conditional delivery and total failure of consideration defences but held that on the sparse record and in a grey area of law the defendant's plea of a quantified partial failure of consideration was not so insubstantial as to be merely shadowy; appeal allowed in part and conditional leave to defend granted provided the whole claim is paid into court within seven days.