27 Apr 2016
Extrinsic oral evidence purporting to qualify delivery of the cheque was inadmissible under the parol evidence rule; the defendant failed to raise any credible triable issue to resist summary judgment, so judgment for the plaintiff for HK$200,000 with interest and costs was properly entered and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Feb 2015
The court found on objective construction of the agreement and contemporaneous documents that the contracting party identified by company number 4650 was China Finance Samoa, not the plaintiff, and rejected the plaintiff's late, uncorroborated claim of a clerical mistake; extrinsic oral evidence attempting to place the cheque in escrow or to vary its unconditional nature failed the parol evidence rule or was not proved; statutory and unconscionability defences also failed; because the plaintiff was not the payee the action on the dishonoured cheque was dismissed and counterclaims failed.
12 Oct 2009
Defendant failed to establish any credible or reasonably probable triable defence: the conditional delivery/escrow allegation was inadmissible and inherently incredible in light of the circumstances and parol evidence rule; the presumption of consideration was not rebutted; presentment was within reasonable time; accordingly plaintiff entitled to summary judgment for the cheque amounts with interest and costs.
3 Jan 2007
The court found the contemporaneous documentary evidence and fax signature trail established a concluded 4th contract and that the cheque was an unconditional payment of the HK$130,000 deposit; the defendant's defences (total failure of consideration, fraud, conditional delivery, penalty) were unbelievable, inadequately particularised or legally irrelevant to a claim on the cheque; accordingly there was no triable issue and summary judgment was granted for the plaintiff for HK$130,000 plus interest and costs.
12 Nov 2002
The cheque was an unconditional bill of exchange; the defendant's pleaded conditions did not alter delivery or payment and were inadmissible to vary the instrument; no properly pleaded or evidenced conditional delivery/escrow existed; therefore the defence could not succeed and judgment for the plaintiff was warranted.
28 Nov 2001
Defendant failed to discharge the threshold onus on an O 14 application to show any triable issue: the cheque was supported by consideration and was an unconditional written order; parol evidence could not be admitted to impose conditions or a collateral contract that would vary the written cheque; even if undated the cheque was payable on demand and the holder could fill omissions; the conditions relied on (registration of shares) were not satisfied, so summary judgment was properly entered for the plaintiff.
24 Oct 1994
The court allowed the defendant to defend the cheques on the basis of a reasonably arguable total failure of consideration because the kits had been purchased for use with equipment which the plaintiff failed to bring into production and for which technical know-how was not transferred; accordingly the default judgment was set aside on condition the defendant pays HK$273,515.38 into court within four weeks to abide the result of trial, with liberty to apply if unable to pay.
17 Feb 1989
The Court dismissed the appeal because the defendant had established a triable issue of fact regarding the conditional/escrow nature of the cheque and whether the condition precedent was fulfilled; given the factual nature of the dispute the Court of Appeal would not overturn the trial judge's discretionary grant of leave to defend absent clear error.
14 Nov 1968
The alleged contemporaneous oral condition sought to introduce a defeasance into an unconditional written order to pay and therefore contradicted the instrument; it was not a pure escrow case and parol evidence was inadmissible to defeat the cheque. Separately, on the contract claim the defendants contracted as principals and could not defeat their liability by asserting the seller's failure to obtain a letter of credit, since the condition was for the plaintiff's benefit and could be waived; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate in both actions.