6 Sept 2006
The cheque was payment for approved invoices and not conditional escrow; there was no total failure of consideration and a probable counterclaim does not defeat an action on a dishonoured cheque; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the cheque amount with interest and costs.
27 Jun 2003
The court found on evidence that the bank became holder (bearer/indorsee) in due course for value, had no actual or constructive notice of fraud or defective title, the Defendant failed to prove fraud/collusion to the high standard required, and statutory dispensation of notice of dishonour applied; accordingly the Plaintiff was entitled to enforce the three cheques and judgment was entered for the amounts claimed with interest and costs.
7 Nov 1997
The blank indorsements did not render the cheques irregular on their face; the Plaintiff qualified as a holder in due course relying on statutory presumptions and evidence of value and good faith; therefore personal defenses alleged against prior parties did not defeat the Plaintiff's claim and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff on the three cheques.
12 Mar 1986
Defendant's signature did not create indorser liability because the plaintiff remained a bearer-holder both before and after the signature with no consideration or change of position flowing from the defendant to the plaintiff; the defendant's signature was mere re-delivery and surplusage and did not convert plaintiff into a holder in due course, so defendant is not liable; additionally presentment was prematurely made so notice would have been invalid, and on alternative analysis lack of consideration and absence of accommodation/backing at the time the plaintiff obtained the cheques preclud…
7 May 1985
Because the payee delivered the order cheque to the bank 'for collection' and the bank had given value/had a lien by discounting and crediting the customer's account, section 84 applied even though the bank was collecting for itself; therefore the bank was a holder in due course entitled to sue the drawer, and the 'Account Payee Only' crossing did not prevent transferability.
8 Apr 1978
Prima facie evidence showed the cheques were negotiated before maturity and valuable consideration had been given (by Edward Wong Finance), so the plaintiff qualified as a holder in due course under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance; the defendant's affidavits did not disclose a valid defence or particulars sufficient to resist summary judgment, therefore leave to defend was improperly granted and summary judgment was warranted.
4 Feb 1977
The appeal was allowed because the cheques were bearer instruments and therefore indorsement by Luen Kee was unnecessary; alternatively, even if indorsement were necessary, the evidence including an admission established that the endorser was the proprietor of Luen Kee, so the adjudicator erred in overlooking that admission.