Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of receivables

Legal area

Court

24 May 2022

JTS MERCHANT CAPITAL LTD v. ALWAYS ONLINE TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1463
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA242/2015

The court found the plaintiff breached the factoring Agreement by making unauthorised deductions, charging commissions on notional/unpaid disbursements and failing to provide required monthly accounts/particulars; the defendant lawfully terminated and is entitled to recovery of sums wrongfully retained. Judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim for HK$3,233,807.41 with interest and costs.
23 Nov 2020

RE ASIA VIEW ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2812
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW189/2020

The company demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds because clause 10 was more plausibly a timing provision rather than displacing the CIF default that payment arises on tender of shipping documents; under nemo dat the petitioner only acquired Phoenix's rights which had not yet arisen if documents were not delivered; the company's email reply did not constitute a clear and unequivocal representation amounting to estoppel; accordingly the petition was averted and struck out.
7 Oct 2020

LIO WENG TONG v. FUNDPARK LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD14/2020

Applicants failed to show the debts in the statutory demands were disputed on substantial grounds; the Respondent reasonably determined under Clause 8 that Athena’s non-payment was not due to financial inability because there was no evidence of insolvency and there were at least arguable disputes as to breach, right of return and set-off; therefore the statutory demands stand and the applications are dismissed.
7 Oct 2020

MA SONG QI ONDY v. FUNDPARK LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2540
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD15/2020

There was no evidence that non-payment by Athena was due to financial inability and the Respondent's determination under Clause 8 was not unreasonable on the available materials; accordingly the Applicants failed to show the debts were disputed on substantial grounds and the statutory demands must not be set aside.
27 Apr 2004

SMELOAN HONG KONG LTD v. TODAY\'S MASTER LTD t/a MASTER GRAPHIC

Citation

SMELOAN HONG KONG LTD v. TODAY\'S MASTER LTD t/a MASTER GRAPHIC
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3376/2002

Plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof because the only documentary evidence was unverified computer records which amounted to multiple hearsay; the persons who made the entries were not called and there was no evidence that the computers operated properly or were safeguarded under s49, so the records could not be relied upon to prove the debt; claim dismissed.
13 May 2002

RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. YEUNG HANG KIN

Citation

RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. YEUNG HANG KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA323/2001

Because the markers evidenced an enforceable gambling debt under Nevada law and the assignments transferring the debt to the Plaintiff were valid under Nevada law, the debt is enforceable in Hong Kong and the Plaintiff has title to sue, entitling the Plaintiff to judgment for US$92,500 plus interest and costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

JTS MERCHANT CAPITAL LTD v. ALWAYS ONLINE TECHNOLOGY LTD

RE ASIA VIEW ENTERPRISES LTD

LIO WENG TONG v. FUNDPARK LTD

MA SONG QI ONDY v. FUNDPARK LTD

SMELOAN HONG KONG LTD v. TODAY\'S MASTER LTD t/a MASTER GRAPHIC

RAMBAS MARKETING CO., LLC v. YEUNG HANG KIN