Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Documentary credit

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2008

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2350/2007

The original Statement of Claim is struck out because it lacks essential material facts and particulars to support the pleaded causes of action (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and any implied contract claim). The action is not dismissed at this stage because it is not plainly frivolous or an abuse of process; the Plaintiff is permitted to amend with proper particulars within six weeks. The documentary credit had lapsed and any cause of action in relation to the L/C must be pleaded and particularised elsewhere.
6 Jun 2003

HKSAR v. KWONG SHING CHEONG STEPHEN

Citation

HKSAR v. KWONG SHING CHEONG STEPHEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC555/2002

The Court refused leave to appeal and upheld the two-year sentence because the offences were serious, involved three transactions totalling about $7.8 million, and the applicant was not entitled to additional discount for an unfulfilled promise to testify; the sentencing judge acted within acceptable bounds and the sentence was not manifestly excessive.
30 Jul 1993

MICHEL OF HONG KONG LIMITED v. SELF STRONG LIMITED

Citation

MICHEL OF HONG KONG LIMITED v. SELF STRONG LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6214/1992

Although the entry of judgment was irregular because Registry staff ought not to have permitted automatic entry of judgment after accepting the amended particulars without direction from a master, the defendant had no arguable defence: contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably the written amendments to the documentary credit) destroyed the alleged oral agreement to reduce price and rendered the defence frivolous. Consequently the irregularity did not justify setting aside the judgment and the appeal was dismissed.
17 May 1989

TECHMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. CHEUNG AH PING ANITA t/a HAO FU INTERNATIONAL CO.

Citation

TECHMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. CHEUNG AH PING ANITA t/a HAO FU INTERNATIONAL CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA109/1988

No collateral or condition precedent existed obliging the seller to produce its contract with the Italian supplier; defendant breached by failing to open the L/C; clause 14 is a valid liquidated damages provision (not a penalty); plaintiff is limited to the contractual liquidated sum of US$51,000 and is awarded that sum with costs.
10 Jun 1985

TAKMAY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. LINKON TRADING LIMITED

Citation

TAKMAY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. LINKON TRADING LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA296/1985

Construing the written purchase order together with surrounding commercial facts (purchasers unnamed, impractical payment term for overseas buyers, agent invoiced and received payments) established that the defendant undertook liability for payment; accordingly judgment for the plaintiff for the unpaid invoices was required.

Hong Kong Case Law

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

HKSAR v. KWONG SHING CHEONG STEPHEN

MICHEL OF HONG KONG LIMITED v. SELF STRONG LIMITED

TECHMA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v. CHEUNG AH PING ANITA t/a HAO FU INTERNATIONAL CO.

TAKMAY INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. LINKON TRADING LIMITED