Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonour of cheques

Legal area

Court

12 Oct 2015

NILESH MURLI SAJNANI v. YOHAN SIMONIAN

Citation

NILESH MURLI SAJNANI v. YOHAN SIMONIAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1355/2014

The appeal was dismissed because contemporaneous documentary evidence (signed agreements, typed cheque particulars and multiple emails) convincingly demonstrated the defendant voluntarily acknowledged and undertook the HK$2,700,000 liability and delivered the cheques; the defendant's allegations of duress, undue influence and oral settlement were found not credible on the available evidence, so there was no real prospect of defence to the 2nd Agreement and cheques and summary judgment was properly entered.
28 May 2013

HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUEN WAI KEI AND ANOTHER v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1242/2006

The court found no credible evidence that plaintiffs made the alleged representations about withdrawal of the Form 5 or guaranteed reinstatement of Choy as Responsible Officer, no oral cancellation of the Shares Agreement occurred, and the Shares Agreement remained binding. The Memorandum, Supplemental Agreement and S&P were correctly construed as security/guarantee for Choy's liability. Defendants were liable for the dishonour of the post-dated cheques (HK$30,000,000) and, alternatively, Raking must specifically perform by assigning the Properties to China Gain with the agreed consideration…
28 May 2013

HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER

Citation

HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1093/2006

The court found no credible evidence that the alleged representations or collateral agreement were made, no valid cancellation or frustration of the Shares Agreement occurred, and the Security & Set-Off documents were intended and acted as guarantee for Choy's liability; accordingly the Shares Agreement was enforceable, the cheques represented debt of HK$30,000,000 owing by Choy and alternative specific performance against Raking was available to assign the Properties to China Gain with the stated set-off.
28 May 2013

HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER

Citation

HUEN WAI KEI v. CHOY KWONG WA CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2140/2006

Credibility and documentary evidence established there were no representations by plaintiffs that Choy would be reinstated as RO, no valid cancellation of the Shares Agreement, and that the Security & Set-Off documentation evidenced agreement to use the Properties as security. The Shares Agreement was therefore enforceable; the three post-dated cheques were properly the defendants' liability and dishonoured, giving rise to a judgment debt of HK$30,000,000 with interest; alternatively specific performance against Raking to assign the Properties to China Gain with set-off of HK$38,400,000 was a…
17 Feb 2004

WELLSHIP CO LTD v. NGAN CHUNG LEUNG

Citation

WELLSHIP CO LTD v. NGAN CHUNG LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3606/2001

Judge preferred plaintiff's witnesses as truthful and the defendant as evasive; found on balance of probabilities that defendant orally guaranteed payment and signed the back of the cheques as evidence of that guarantee; accordingly defendant was liable for the amount of the dishonoured cheques.
7 Feb 2002

SIN HUA BANK LTD. v. LEE YUK WAH FIENNA t/a ACCU-TEK

Citation

SIN HUA BANK LTD. v. LEE YUK WAH FIENNA t/a ACCU-TEK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8075/1999

The defendant's account was not believable in the context of the surrounding undisputed commercial practices and contemporaneous documents; Topearn's directors knowingly gave false undertakings when endorsing the post-dated cheques, amounting to fraud, so there was no triable issue and the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment as holder in due course.
29 Jul 1998

CHIU KIN SANG v. CHENG MUK CHUN t/a SUN FAT RESTAURANT and CHENG WING KWOK (3rd party)

Citation

CHIU KIN SANG v. CHENG MUK CHUN t/a SUN FAT RESTAURANT and CHENG WING KWOK (3rd party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3467/1997

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant's account was more plausible than the Plaintiff's; the Plaintiff failed to prove he advanced the alleged loan and that the cheques were given as repayment; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed and the Defendant was entitled to judgment against the 3rd party for HK$280,000 plus interest and to orders for delivery up of the Defendant's cheques and costs to the Defendant.
29 Nov 1989

BETTERFIELD (HK) LTD v. YUEN YUI HING t/a YUEN HING SEWING MACHINE CO

Citation

BETTERFIELD (HK) LTD v. YUEN YUI HING t/a YUEN HING SEWING MACHINE CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1031/1987

The Plaintiff's countermanding and dishonour of the cheques constituted a repudiatory breach of a time‑essence contract; the Defendant validly elected to accept that repudiation and communicated the decision (directly or via staff), hence the Defendant was discharged from performance, entitled to forfeit the deposits and to damages (but not to recover the contract price via the cheques).
30 May 1984

LEE HING TRADING CO v. LAU BING PANG t/a PANG CHING KNITTING FACTORY

Citation

LEE HING TRADING CO v. LAU BING PANG t/a PANG CHING KNITTING FACTORY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12090/1983

Service and notification were adequate under Order 34 r.8; plaintiff proved invoices and produced dishonoured cheques; section 50(2)(c)(iv) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance permitted reliance on dishonour without separate proof of notice, therefore judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$72,388.75 with interest and costs.
12 Mar 1982

YUNG SIU-KEN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

YUNG SIU-KEN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC990/1981

Although the original sentences (two years on the first charge and concurrent two‑year sentences on four others) were not excessive in principle, the Court exercised clemency based on the appellant’s background, depressive history, family responsibilities and the likely adverse effects of prolonged imprisonment; suspension was inappropriate, but reduction of the first count to one year and maintenance of concurrent sentences on the remaining counts produced a total effective sentence of one year.