Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inspection certificates

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2004

GEALEX TOYS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. PROMOTIONAL PARTNERS GROUP LTD

Citation

GEALEX TOYS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. PROMOTIONAL PARTNERS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2577/2002

Plaintiff complied with the contractual terms and inspection requirements; the defendant accepted the inspected consignments (except one untested consignment) and failed to prove a breach by the plaintiff; the Philippine warehouse tests were flawed and unreliable; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the unpaid balance and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
16 Sept 1997

EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

Citation

EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. STATE BANK OF INDIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA549/1997

The court held that the documents did not strictly comply with the letter of credit because there was a prima facie inconsistency between the bill of lading (showing loading in Bangkok on 18 November 1996) and the inspection certificate (indicating a shipment/departure from Hong Kong on or about 18 November 1996); on that basis the defendant bank was entitled to reject payment and the plaintiff's Order 14A application was dismissed; the third party indemnity issue was not determined.
8 Jan 1996

POSCO ASIA COMPANY LTD. v. SGS HONG KONG LTD. and Another

Citation

POSCO ASIA COMPANY LTD. v. SGS HONG KONG LTD. and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL84/1995

There was sufficient reason to believe the documents in question exist and are relevant, therefore a prima facie case for the disclosure inquiry under Order 24 r.7 was made out; however, the application was not shown to be so urgent as to justify the hearing without reasonable notice, so the summons was adjourned sine die with leave to bring it on after 14 days and costs were reserved with an indication that costs of the hearing may be awarded to the plaintiff absent justification for the urgency.
12 May 1986

UNITED RELIANCE CORPORATION LIMITED v. METALIMEX (HONG KONG) LIMITED

Citation

UNITED RELIANCE CORPORATION LIMITED v. METALIMEX (HONG KONG) LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV172/1985

The appeal was dismissed because the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's factual findings that an oral agreement existed to accept the bill of lading and pay thereafter, that the bill of lading was delivered and delivery effected, and that Metalimex failed to discharge the onus of proving the goods were below the contracted J.I.S. A/B grade; the Chinese inspection certificate was ambiguous and insufficient to rebut the manufacturer's and trial evidence of conformity.
14 Oct 1985

UDHARAM RUPCHAND SONS (HK) LTD. t/a FAR EAST CONFIRMERS v. MERCHANTILE BANK LTD

Citation

UDHARAM RUPCHAND SONS (HK) LTD. t/a FAR EAST CONFIRMERS v. MERCHANTILE BANK LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/1985

The telexed credits, read as a whole, were straight credits limited to negotiation by the advising bank (Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., Bangkok); Mercantile Bank failed to prove the Thai banks negotiated the credits and/or examined documents with reasonable care, and therefore Mercantile Bank was not entitled to reimburse the Thai banks and debit Confirmers' account; appeal dismissed and trial judgment affirmed.
15 Mar 1985

UNHARAM RUPCHAND SONS (HK) LTD t/a FAR EAST CONFIRMERS v. MERCANTILE BANK LTD

Citation

UNHARAM RUPCHAND SONS (HK) LTD t/a FAR EAST CONFIRMERS v. MERCANTILE BANK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL24/1984

The credits were construed as straight credits and therefore conferred no authority on the Thai negotiating banks to claim reimbursement from the issuing bank; Mercantile Bank failed to prove the Thai banks in fact negotiated in good faith and/or for value; material non‑compliance existed (combined transport bills inconsistent with a prohibition on transhipment, failure to tender a full set of invoices and failure to despatch as required) so Mercantile Bank was not entitled to reimbursement and therefore wrongly debited Far East Confirmers and must make restitution.

Hong Kong Case Law

GEALEX TOYS MANUFACTURING CO LTD v. PROMOTIONAL PARTNERS GROUP LTD

EQUITABLE BANKING CORPORATION v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

POSCO ASIA COMPANY LTD. v. SGS HONG KONG LTD. and Another

UNITED RELIANCE CORPORATION LIMITED v. METALIMEX (HONG KONG) LIMITED

UDHARAM RUPCHAND SONS (HK) LTD. t/a FAR EAST CONFIRMERS v. MERCHANTILE BANK LTD

UNHARAM RUPCHAND SONS (HK) LTD t/a FAR EAST CONFIRMERS v. MERCANTILE BANK LTD