Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonoured cheques

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2024

CHEUNG SIU YU v. KE JUNXIANG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3579
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1020/2014

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the pleaded oral agreement existed because the Plaintiff underwrote the placing, received a batch of sequential post‑dated cheques, the Defendant repeatedly admitted liability in contemporaneous SMS, a draft share transfer document mirrored the oral terms, and cheques and conduct linked Cheque A to the price‑difference protection; accordingly the Defendant breached the oral agreement and the Plaintiff is entitled to the claim subject to deductions for cash received and sale proceeds.
12 Nov 2024

INTEGRATED CAPITAL (ASIA) LTD v. CHAN TING

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1778/2022

The judge held that the defendant raised an arguable cheque-specific defence because the written loan agreements objectively supported that the undated cheques were delivered as conditional security and could only be used after specified events of default and written notice (Clause 13.2); those factual issues were hotly disputed and not suitable for summary determination. Because triable issues existed in respect of both the dishonoured cheques and the loans (including factual disputes about settlement and enforcement of security and procedural compliance under the loan terms), the appeal was…
30 Aug 2022

RE KWAN SHUN KEUNG TIMMY

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB2146/2022

Petitioner established inability to pay by non‑compliance with statutory demands and evidence of dishonoured cheques; the debtor failed to produce sufficiently precise, believable evidence of a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds, therefore the court was justified under the Bankruptcy Ordinance in making a bankruptcy order against the debtor.
31 Mar 2022

RE DAI YUMIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 950
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7582/2020

The statutory demand was validly served at the address stipulated in the settlement agreement and brought to the debtor's attention; arbitration clauses did not plainly or expressly cover independent rights to sue on the dishonoured cheques and therefore do not bar court proceedings; the debtor failed to adduce credible, substantial evidence of triable disputes (no reliable proof of a 2017 settlement, duress was unsubstantiated and was ratified by conduct, failure of consideration and mitigation claims fell away), accordingly there were no bona fide disputes preventing the grant of a bankrupt…
13 Dec 2021

GREEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LTD v. LEE CLIFF YEE GONG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3709
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3315/2021

The statutory demand was validly served; the Debtor failed to demonstrate a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because his account was inconsistent with contemporaneous evidence (WeChat messages, earlier letters), he produced no supporting evidence from his mother, and the forgery allegation lacked cogent proof; therefore the petition succeeds and a bankruptcy order is made with costs.
21 Jun 2021

KCK ENERGY CONSERVATION SYSTEM LTD v. CHAU KEE HOLDINGS CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKDC 740
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ97/2020

The court refused to discharge the Mareva injunction because the plaintiff established a good arguable case against the company and the individual defendants, there was no material non-disclosure to the ex parte judge, and there existed a real risk of asset dissipation based on registry changes, alleged overseas transfers and undisclosed interests; the variation request was refused except a limited amendment permitting HKD 100,000 for legal advice and representation up to and including exchange of witness statements; costs ordered nisi against the defendants.
30 Oct 2020

LIANG YUYU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2411/2019

Intervention under s.385 SFO was permitted because the dishonest cheque actions concerned matters within the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrably had an interest by virtue of its functions, consultation with the Financial Secretary occurred, intervention was in the public interest to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds and to guard against collusive or inadequately defended litigation, and the court exercised its discretion to allow intervention and order a stay pending investigation.
19 Nov 2019

SHINODA MAKOTO v. CHOI LOK YIN KINGSTON

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2112/2017

The defendant's duress allegations, though not pleaded optimally, contained sufficient particulars and contemporaneous references to be capable of being believed; therefore it was inappropriate to summarily reject the defence and summary judgment was refused; unconditional leave to defend was granted; costs were ordered in the cause and counsel's attendance was certified.
14 Aug 2019

LI MEI v. ARANBANPHOTKUN, PRATTHANA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1973
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2145/2015

Adjournment was permitted but only on strict terms because the defendant's medical evidence was deficient and late; the court required a fixing appointment within 21 days, an up-to-date treating-doctor report, payment of assessed costs by a set date and imposed the sanction that failure to comply would bar the defendant from relying on her defence and allow the plaintiff to proceed.
26 Jul 2018

SINGH HARDEV v. DOKE JITENDRA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKDC 889
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2569/2016

Court found on balance that only one genuine personal loan of HK$90,000 was proved; Cheques A,B,C relate to that loan and s30 BEO presumption applies; Cheques D and E involved failure of consideration and dishonest alteration by plaintiff; judgment entered for HK$90,000 against 1st defendant with interest from presentation dates of Cheques A,B,C; costs ordered nisi for no order as to costs due to both parties' untruthful testimony.