Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Letter of credit

Legal area

Court

21 May 2020

CALM OCEAN SHIPPING S.A. v. WIN GOAL TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 801
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ118/2015

Representative action under O.15 r.12 was refused because (1) a realistic conflict of interest existed between D1-4 and potential claimants in the class, (2) the persons potentially interested were not shown to be 'numerous' as required by the rule, and (3) duties imposed on a reluctant representative would cause serious prejudice; however, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to permit joinder of Persons Unknown with amended, clear description and appropriate notification and service directions, including an order that the 1st Defendant notify any payer in writing, as necessary to a…
10 Feb 2017

TOYOTA TSUSHO (H.K.) CORPORATION LTD v. CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

TOYOTA TSUSHO (H.K.) CORPORATION LTD v. CHIMEI INNOLUX CORPORATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1173/2011

The Controversial Contract and other disputed documents were forgeries produced without CIC's authority by Kirin and connected parties; CIC had genuine Kirin Agreements and delivered goods to Kirin, received payment under the Subject L/C in good faith and changed its position by delivering the goods in reliance on anticipated payment, so Toyota HK's contractual and restitutionary claims against CIC fail; Kirin committed fraud and is liable to Toyota HK and to CIC for the sum involved and costs as ordered.
22 Oct 2014

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEW HARVEST INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEW HARVEST INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1361/2005

The summons for leave to file the late supplemental expert report was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide a convincing or exceptional explanation for the lateness, the draft report raised new unpleaded issues and overstepped the proper scope of expert opinion (including making submissions and accusations), and its admission would prejudice the respondent and risk disrupting trial preparation; accordingly leave was refused and costs ordered against the applicant.
29 Aug 2014

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH

Citation

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the framed questions were academic, fact‑specific, not of sufficient general or public importance or were not argued below; the court permitted the bank to rely on accord and satisfaction despite lack of pleading due to special circumstances and held that defective notices of refusal were decisive to the underlying liability question, so no leave to the Court of Final Appeal was appropriate.
15 May 2014

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH

Citation

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2013

The Court held that the Bank's MT752 was properly construed as a representation/authorisation to claim reimbursement under the letter of credit but did not constitute an issuing-bank determination under Article 15a because the Bank had not actually examined and determined compliance when it sent that message; however, notwithstanding issues about Article 16 compliance, the decisive legal basis for dismissing the plaintiff's claim was that the parties reached a bona fide compromise (accord and satisfaction) whereby the plaintiff accepted and was paid US$5,122,240 and instructed release of docu…
4 Apr 2014

CEP LTD v. 无锡巿佳诚太阳能科技有限公司

Citation

CEP LTD v. 无锡巿佳诚太阳能科技有限公司
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL12/2012

The Sales Contract construed by its plain language and context required CEP to have the letter of credit issued by the buyer (direct L/C) and did not permit a transferable L/C; CEP failed to ensure a compliant direct L/C and the Amended 007 transferable L/C did not overcome that contractual requirement; CEP failed to prove that Mr Zhang had authority to bind Jiacheng or that Jiacheng waived reliance on non‑compliance or was estopped from refusing the transferable L/C; Supplemental Agreement II was not set aside for economic duress; clause 14 limited recoverable damages such that CEP could not…
11 Jun 2013

WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v. FULL SUCCESS STEEL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

WELL JOINT TRADING LTD v. FULL SUCCESS STEEL CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1597/2011

The appeal was allowed and the applicants were joined because their presence was necessary to determine ownership of the goods and the connected issue whether the 1st defendant acquired and passed good title to Hongshun; the evidence of payment, though documentary gaps existed, made the applicants' averments non‑frivolous; any delay did not cause prejudice and joinder avoids multiplicity and is the just and convenient course.
25 Jun 2012

PIONEER DELUXE LTD v. CIPHER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PIONEER DELUXE LTD v. CIPHER INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1434/2009

Defendant caused the delivery delay by failing to pay for bespoke boxes and by issuing a dishonoured cheque; the Letter of Credit expired and was not extended; defendant accepted deliveries and produced no evidence of defects or adequate particulars for its counterclaim, therefore plaintiff is entitled to judgment for the contract price, the counterclaim fails (except for paid lasts and moulds which form a setoff/lien), costs awarded with reduction for late production of documents.
30 Mar 2012

TAIHAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD v. LAU SIU MING AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIHAN GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD v. LAU SIU MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1687/2011

Court found plaintiff had established serious questions to be tried against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants on misappropriation and that there was a real risk of dissipation of assets; accordingly the ex parte Mareva injunction and disclosure order were continued against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants and the applications to set the injunction aside were dismissed; the 2nd defendant was relieved from the sanction of the unless order and granted an extension of time to file its defence.
24 Aug 2010

LAI TAK ENTERPRISES LTD v. DAILY FINE INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

LAI TAK ENTERPRISES LTD v. DAILY FINE INDUSTRIAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5352/2008

On the balance of probabilities there was no novation to Profit Winning; contemporaneous documents, delivery, invoices and post-delivery correspondence show Defendant remained the contracting buyer; the court finds the Plaintiff did not receive the inspection certificate and cargo receipt; the letter of credit was a conditional payment but because the requisite documents were not delivered to Plaintiff, Defendant remains liable; judgment entered for Plaintiff for the claimed sum with interest and costs nisi.