Hong Kong Case Law

11 Oct 2019

QVIST HENRIK v. CLATRONIC FAR EAST LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2464

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA1144/2015

The court found that, on the evidence, the plaintiff had established a reasonably adequate system involving his own cheque-signing checks together with monthly transmission of originals and cheque records to external accountants and the parent; the forged and faked instruments were the product of the subordinate's fraud; the matters alleged by the defendants did not amount to a breach of duty by the plaintiff sufficient to justify summary dismissal.

• Wrongful dismissal
• Summary dismissal
• Breach of managerial duties
• Forgery of cheques
• Internal controls
• Quantum of damages

30 May 1996

R. v. HO WING HANG

Citation

R. v. HO WING HANG

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC504/1995

Given the applicant's primary responsibility for preparing cheques and keeping counterfoils, the missing counterfoils and vouchers, his failure to advance a plausible alternative (no trial suggestion that another altered the cheques), and direct evidence of alterations and withdrawals, the trial judge was entitled to find guilt; the three-year concurrent sentence was within the proper range because of the position of trust and the substantial aggregate loss (circa $200,000).

• Theft of cheques
• Forgery of cheques
• Position of trust
• Sufficiency of evidence
• Leave to appeal
• Sentence proportionality

ASIEN-PAZIFIK MERCHANT FINANCE LTD v. SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD

Citation

ASIEN-PAZIFIK MERCHANT FINANCE LTD v. SHANGHAI COMMERCIAL BANK LTD

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA4403/1978

The judge found the 13 cheques to be forgeries, held that forged signatures produce nullities that do not authorize the bank to debit the account, and concluded the defendant failed to establish a triable defence that the plaintiff breached any duty sufficient to bar recovery; established authorities (notably MacMillan) restrict the customer's duty to care in drawing cheques and do not impose a wider duty in account operation, so the plaintiff was entitled to the declaration and payment less sums recovered.

• Forgery of cheques
• Banker's duty to customer
• Customer's duty of care
• Estoppel by failure to notify bank
• Tracing and recovery
• Deposit taking company regulatory duties