13 Apr 2017
The Court found the Defendant validly completed and signed the Letter of Undertaking, understood its nature, and that the Plaintiff's forbearance to sue for twelve months constituted adequate consideration; the Letter was enforceable as a contract and there was no arguable triable defence, therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the claimed sum and interest.
5 Dec 2016
The court held that cheques issued to the plaintiff as security for third‑party debts were supported by valuable consideration because the creditor's forbearance to sue constituted consideration sufficient to support a simple contract under s.27(1); the plaintiff established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to show any triable issue, therefore summary judgment was properly granted for the plaintiff.
5 Dec 2016
The cheques were validly supported by valuable consideration because they were issued to secure forbearance by third parties owed to the plaintiff's directors, which suffices as consideration to support a simple contract under s.27(1); the defendant failed to establish a triable issue and therefore summary judgment was properly granted to the plaintiff.
13 Jun 2011
The court held that the cheque was valid consideration for the plaintiff's forbearance and continued supply; a unilateral mistake by the drawer as to which related company account was used did not affect the plaintiff as payee who accepted the cheque and relied on supporting contemporaneous documentation; judgment entered for the plaintiff for $500,000 with interest and costs.
5 Sept 2007
The appeal was dismissed because there were at least two arguable issues—(1) the correspondence and solicitors' calculations supported an arguable representation that the second interest payment was to be paid on 18 December (raising potential waiver/estoppel), and (2) clause 4 arguably did not impose an obligation to repay after service of a 30-day notice—both of which require resolution at trial rather than summary disposal.
14 Feb 2007
The limitation defence and election argument were not plain and obvious; the pleaded construction that repayment was conditional on demand and possible forbearance were reasonably arguable and therefore the court should not strike out the re-amended claim or allow the interlocutory appeal; prior interlocutory rulings (Master Ho) also militated against relitigation of the limitation point without appeal.
14 Jul 2003
The court held that the District Court judgment constituted a liquidated, immediately payable debt; the statutory demand was not complied with; the debtor's offers were insufficient and properly refused; enforcement actions did not bar the petition, therefore a bankruptcy order should be made.
6 Jun 2003
The court held that the High Court possesses an inherent jurisdiction to stay execution supplementing the Rules; where a judgment debtor is insolvent, there is a reasonable prospect of restructuring with majority creditor support, and the balance of convenience favors preservation of restructuring (and subject to conditions such as payment of interest), a conditional stay of execution is appropriate; applying these principles, a stay until 20 June 2003 was granted on condition that the defendant pay interest on the unaccelerated principal and with liberty to apply.
19 May 2003
The court held that there were significant factual disputes — notably whether the bank agreed to forbear, waive charges or permit sales — that could affect the sum payable and the liability of guarantors; those disputes could not be resolved on affidavit and the matter must proceed to trial (proceed as if begun by writ). However, the plea of non est factum by Mr Wong and Lik Sang was found to be without merit because Mr Wong must have known he was signing guarantees and was negligent in failing to take precautions; the Master’s order striking out that defence was therefore upheld.
17 Jan 2003
The alleged agreement to withhold payments was unsupported by consideration and inherently incredible; the defendant had admitted the indebtedness and therefore the defence disclosed no reasonable defence. Accordingly the defence was struck out and judgment entered for the plaintiff for the assessed sum with interest and possession ordered.