Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonour of cheque

Legal area

Court

22 Jan 2024

FU KWAI CHUN v. FU WING BILL, THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FU MEI CHUN, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKDC 101
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2021/2019

The court found the Plaintiff not credible and accepted the Defendant's witnesses; there was no reliable evidence of the alleged loans or of an accident that would justify the cheque as repayment or gift, and in any event a cheque that has not been presented and paid in the donor's lifetime is revocable on death; therefore the Plaintiff cannot enforce the cheque and the claim is dismissed.
22 May 2013

JUNG CHUEN BAKELITE & JUNG CHUEN BAKELITE & PLASTIC MANUFACTORY LTD v. SEMK INDUSTRIAL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD

Citation

JUNG CHUEN BAKELITE & JUNG CHUEN BAKELITE & PLASTIC MANUFACTORY LTD v. SEMK INDUSTRIAL (HOLDINGS) CO LTD<br>
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2567/2010

Judge preferred defendant's witness (Lau) and found that an extension was agreed on 15 October 2012, the defendant altered its position in reliance (countermanded cheque, incurred fee, deposited replacement cheque) and promissory estoppel therefore barred the plaintiff from enforcing the original terms of the consent order; accordingly the plaintiff's summons for judgment was dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiff on an indemnity basis.
26 Apr 2013

CHAN KAM CHEUNG v. CHAN CHUEN TAI t/a KWONG TAI GARMENT FACTORY

Citation

CHAN KAM CHEUNG v. CHAN CHUEN TAI t/a KWONG TAI GARMENT FACTORY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1708/2011

On the balance of probabilities the six cheques were delivered for payment of the invoices; only HK$260,000 was paid after the cheques were drawn leaving HK$497,169.82 outstanding; presentment of the remaining five cheques was properly dispensed with under s.46(2)(c) BoEO because the account was closed and the drawer had no reason to believe the cheques would be met; judgment entered for the Plaintiff for the outstanding sum plus interest and costs.
22 Feb 2012

GREAT HARVEST PROPERTY INVESTMENT LTD v. HO FREEMAN CHI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

GREAT HARVEST PROPERTY INVESTMENT LTD v. HO FREEMAN CHI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA560/2010

Leave to re-amend was refused because the proposed re-amendments alleged that the Company had discharged the purchasers and relied on Ho's promise to pay, which was directly inconsistent with the Company's continuing claim against the purchasers for the same deposits; the Company failed to show reasonable grounds for inconsistent alternative pleadings under Order 18 r12A and failed to verify by its own officers; further, the Company is not the holder of the cheques and had not pleaded any assignment/endorsement or other title to sue on the cheques, so the claim against the 1st defendant based…
5 Jan 2012

LAU YUEN YI v. LEUNG CHI YUNG

Citation

LAU YUEN YI v. LEUNG CHI YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2030/2008

The Minutes of Consent Order, incorporated into an Order By Consent and agreed to be "in full and final settlement" of ancillary relief, superseded any prior agreement or cheque-based claim; accordingly the plaintiff's claim on the HK$4,000,000 cheque is dismissed (the judge also found the cheque was produced to pacify the plaintiff and was tainted by duress, though that was not the decisive ground).
22 Jan 2010

SUN LEE KYOUNG SIL v. JIA WEILI

Citation

SUN LEE KYOUNG SIL v. JIA WEILI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1768/2009

Time was of the essence of the provisional agreement given the nature of the transaction and circumstances; the defendant's failure to ensure funds so the cheque would clear amounted to a repudiatory breach; plaintiff validly accepted repudiation and was entitled to damages/forfeiture of the initial deposit and judgment on the dishonoured cheque and to have the Land Registry entry vacated.
30 Nov 2005

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2005

The court held that RCCs undertaking did not arise because the condition of payment failed when the $2 million cheque was dishonoured on the completion date; LHKs negligence was established and the 28-month loss of rent was a foreseeable consequence of that negligence and therefore recoverable; mitigation and specific deductions relied on by LHK were not pleaded or proved and could not be advanced on appeal; the judges indemnity costs order was within discretionary bounds and would not be disturbed.
25 Nov 2005

COIN YIELD CO LTD v. CHAN HO KONG

Citation

COIN YIELD CO LTD v. CHAN HO KONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2563/2005

The alleged oral promises were found wholly incredible; since a cheque is an unconditional order for payment and the defendant failed to raise any credible triable issue or lawful basis to contradict the cheque, summary judgment was appropriate and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $420,000 with interest and costs.
4 Jun 2004

BRUCE HUTCHISON v. HO PUI TSUN PETER

Citation

BRUCE HUTCHISON v. HO PUI TSUN PETER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV203/2003

The Court set aside the order requiring payment of $1,410,000 into court because the defendant demonstrated impecuniosity on the evidence admitted with leave and the counterclaim raised arguable factual issues and an arguable equitable set-off that could not be resolved at summary judgment; the plaintiff's cross-appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered in the cause.
15 Mar 2002

LAM KWOK HUNG v. WONG CHI FAI

Citation

LAM KWOK HUNG v. WONG CHI FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7151/1992

Judge accepted the plaintiff's credible evidence and found the cheque was given as part of the settlement arrangement and supported by valid consideration which did not fail prior to presentation; therefore the defendant was liable to pay HK$715,000 plus interest and costs, and indemnity costs were refused.