Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Documentary discrepancies

Legal area

Court

12 Jul 2013

ELITE BRILLIANT LTD v. BST (HK) LTD

Citation

ELITE BRILLIANT LTD v. BST (HK) LTD<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA88/2012

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff raised credible, triable issues, including a plausible waiver of discrepancies and a legitimate interpretation issue over the phrase 'clean documents' (which the court found could properly be read as referring only to bills of lading); accordingly summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 5 was inappropriate and the plaintiff was entitled to defend.
7 May 2004

N.V. KONINKLIJKE SPHINX GUSTAVSBERG v. COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE, RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A.

Citation

N.V. KONINKLIJKE SPHINX GUSTAVSBERG v. COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE, RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL188/1997

The court found the beneficiary's certificate inconsistent with other presented documents and therefore discrepant under UCP Article 13(a); the bank's SWIFT rejection sufficiently described the discrepancy; additionally, even construing Article 14e narrowly to cover notification delay only, the bank gave notice without undue delay (sent on the fourth banking day), so it was not precluded from relying on the discrepancies; accordingly the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
1 Mar 2002

COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A. t/a Rabobank, Hong Kong Branch v. BANK OF CHINA

Citation

COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A. t/a Rabobank, Hong Kong Branch v. BANK OF CHINA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL56/2001

The court declined to grant summary judgment because the issues raised (documentary discrepancy over the Certificate of Origin and the alleged Chinese property preservation order / illegality defence) were not sufficiently straightforward and raised triable issues requiring evidence and possibly expert opinion; accordingly unconditional leave to defend was granted and the matter ordered to proceed to trial, with costs of the application to be costs in the cause and the certificate for two counsel refused.
8 Sept 2000

NEDCOR ASIA LTD. v. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

Citation

NEDCOR ASIA LTD. v. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL304/1998

The omission of 'Shantou Branch' on the draft did not constitute a valid discrepancy because the credit was issued by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China as a single legal entity and the draft complied with the express terms of the credit; additionally, the issuing bank's delay in rejecting the documents was not a 'reasonable time' under UCP 500 Articles 13(b) and 14(d)/(e), precluding objection. Therefore the issuing bank was obliged to reimburse the negotiating bank.
29 May 1991

LEE LATEX (PTE) LTD v. HANG LUNG BANK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE LATEX (PTE) LTD v. HANG LUNG BANK LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6449/1989

Plaintiff validly accepted the buyer's repudiation on 27 September 1989; plaintiff mitigated reasonably in the volatile latex market and is entitled to the difference between contract price and resale proceeds (US$60,314.28), reduced storage charges (HK$112,350.00) and bank interest (S$3,843.92), plus interest as calculated and judgment interest from 9 May 1991.
3 Jul 1972

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM)

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA151/1971

Under the UCP (1962) Article 30 the commercial invoices corresponded with the credits and other shipping documents were acceptable in general terms; the obliterations and discrepancies were immaterial in the circumstances and did not render the documents non‑compliant. Consequently the bank validly accepted the documents and is entitled to recover from the defendants the sums paid under the credits.

Hong Kong Case Law

ELITE BRILLIANT LTD v. BST (HK) LTD

N.V. KONINKLIJKE SPHINX GUSTAVSBERG v. COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE, RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A.

COOPERATIEVE CENTRALE RAIFFEISEN-BOERENLEENBANK B.A. t/a Rabobank, Hong Kong Branch v. BANK OF CHINA

NEDCOR ASIA LTD. v. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA

LEE LATEX (PTE) LTD v. HANG LUNG BANK LTD AND ANOTHER

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA LTD v. LUEN HOP HONG (A FIRM)