4 Dec 2015
On the balance of probabilities the court found the funds were advanced to Gamze Ltd (not to Fong personally) and that Gamze's Repayment Cheque discharged the debt; the plaintiff failed to prove a personal debt owed by Fong and therefore the claim against Fong is dismissed.
22 Feb 2001
Because there were real and substantive disputes of fact about whether a cash payment and remittance occurred and whether mistakes existed in the running accounts, summary judgment was inappropriate; however given the tenuous nature of the Defendant's defence justice required conditional leave to defend subject to payment into court of the disputed sum within a fixed time, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
17 Feb 1998
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant had raised a triable defence of want of consideration and disputed primary facts about the relationship between the defendant, its director and the third party purchaser which could not be resolved at the Order 14 stage; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate, the judge's order was set aside and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.
9 Jun 1995
The Court held the cheque was an unconditional order to the bank and there was no total failure of consideration for the cheque; accordingly summary judgment for the vendor on the cheque was proper. The purchaser's counterclaim for specific performance of an oral settlement of land sale was unenforceable under s.3 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and disclosed no sustainable cause of action, so the Defence and Counterclaim were struck out and the counterclaim dismissed.
14 Jan 1985
The court preferred the plaintiff's factual account, found the defendant failed to prove non est factum, misrepresentation or duress, but concluded the plaintiff did not comply with Money Lenders Ordinance s18(1)(b) because the prescribed summary was not provided; consequently the promissory note and associated cheque were unenforceable under s18(1) but, exercising the s18(3) discretion and weighing equities and plaintiff's procedural deficiencies, the court enforced one half of the principal and disallowed interest prior to judgment.
23 Jun 1983
The marking 'Account Payee Only' on a crossed cheque does not destroy negotiability or prohibit transfer; where a plaintiff is a holder in due course (taking for value in good faith and without notice), private conditions between prior parties or inadequately pleaded allegations of fraud do not defeat the holder's right to sue the drawer, so judgment for the holder in due course must be entered for the face value of the cheques.
1 May 1969
The contracts on their face made the defendants the purchasers; the provision for payment by irrevocable letter of credit was for the vendors' benefit and could be waived, so delivery to the Indonesian buyer did not defeat plaintiffs' right to recover the price; a cheque is an unconditional negotiable instrument and cannot be made subject to an oral condition, therefore there was no arguable defence and leave to enter final judgment was rightly granted.