Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evidence of payment

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2015

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2003/2013

The application to strike out and to determine the legal question under RHC O14A was dismissed because the plaintiffs' resulting trust claim and the defendants' in pari delicto defence depend on disputed factual issues (payment of HK$1 million, the Deceased's knowledge and intention, and which solicitor acted for whom) that cannot be resolved on affidavit; therefore the claim is not obviously unsustainable and must proceed to trial.
16 Oct 2012

NKYL v. LSP

Citation

NKYL v. LSP
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8026/2007

The variation application failed because there was no material change of circumstances or unforeseen event to justify narrowing the broad undertaking in the Consent Order; the wording of Recital D covered all tertiary educational expenses including boarding; billing statements and related documentary evidence suffice as proof of payment; children's consent is not a precondition to Petitioner's right of reimbursement; the proposed reductions were arbitrary and contrary to the parties' original agreement; application dismissed and costs awarded to Petitioner.
31 Jan 2007

GE CAPITAL (HONG KONG) LTD v. NGAN TSE LEUNG

Citation

GE CAPITAL (HONG KONG) LTD v. NGAN TSE LEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP869/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the Defendant failed to prove the alleged payments with any documentary evidence despite leave to do so; there was no contractual 45‑day grace period; at the time the originating summons was issued instalments for March and April were in arrear (March outstanding 53 days, April 22 days), thereby justifying the Registrar's order for payment and delivery of vacant possession.
29 Nov 2006

HOME ESSENTIALS (HK) LTD v. JOHN McLENNAN

Citation

HOME ESSENTIALS (HK) LTD v. JOHN McLENNAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ943/2003

The Employment Contract was not signed by the defendant and did not reflect the parties' true verbal agreement; the court found on the evidence that the employer had consented to the defendant continuing limited individual design work so long as it did not interfere with his duties; therefore there was no breach of fiduciary duty requiring an account of profits and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed. Separately the defendant proved unpaid wages, bonus and expenses (less amounts received) and recovered HK$107,463.68; the defendant gave no valid notice so the plaintiff recovered one month's wa…
17 Apr 1986

DHARMVIR MADNANI v. ASSAN C. DATWANI

Citation

DHARMVIR MADNANI v. ASSAN C. DATWANI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL65/1980

The cheque payable to cash is not a bill of exchange under s.3 and the plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant promised to pay or assumed liability; the defendant's account that the cheque was lost and stopped was preferred, therefore the plaintiff's claims fail and the action is dismissed.
17 Feb 1983

CHAN PO CHIU, DAVID v. LEE PIT TAT

Citation

CHAN PO CHIU, DAVID v. LEE PIT TAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12098/1982

There are substantive triable issues as to whether the original written agreement was validly discharged by an alleged oral agreement and whether the $40,000 deposit was transferred to a subsequent oral agreement; because the evidence and legal effects of oral disposition under the relevant statute are ambiguous, the Master's judgment is set aside and unconditional leave to defend is granted to allow full trial resolution.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

NKYL v. LSP

GE CAPITAL (HONG KONG) LTD v. NGAN TSE LEUNG

HOME ESSENTIALS (HK) LTD v. JOHN McLENNAN

DHARMVIR MADNANI v. ASSAN C. DATWANI

CHAN PO CHIU, DAVID v. LEE PIT TAT