Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice of dishonour

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2021

YANCROWN LTD v. CHAN WAI PIU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2406
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA527/2021

Summary judgment was refused and the plaintiff's application dismissed because triable issues exist arising from a prior decision that the underlying loans may be unenforceable under s23 MLO; the cheques are inextricably linked to those loans and their enforceability (including failure of consideration and potential need to exercise s23 discretion) cannot be resolved summarily; continuation of the action would be abusive and risks inconsistent or duplicative judgments, so the action is stayed pending final determination of the existing proceedings.
25 Sept 2020

KAN MAN LOK PAUL v. CHENG YANG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2506
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA215/2018

The plaintiff proved the cheque was properly presented and dishonoured marked 'refer to drawer' (dispensing with notice); there was no credible documentary or oral evidence linking the cheque to a repayable security arrangement and the defendant did not give evidence; therefore the drawer was liable and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with interest and costs.
27 Aug 2014

XU ZIMING v. RUIFENG PETROLEUM CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

XU ZIMING v. RUIFENG PETROLEUM CHEMICAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA450/2013

The stay was refused because the defendant failed to identify any arguable defence on the promissory note and cheques and therefore there were no real issues to be tried elsewhere; further the defendant is bound by the promissory note's non‑exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clause and has not discharged the heavy burden to show that Guangzhou is clearly a more appropriate forum.
29 Aug 2006

WONG YIN MUI SANDY v. NEWPORT MAY

Citation

WONG YIN MUI SANDY v. NEWPORT MAY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2477/2004

On the facts the Court found the cheque genuine, the parties reached a compromise settling disputed employment entitlements such that Plaintiff forborne pursuing statutory claims against the company in exchange for the $441,000 payment, the deceased intended to be personally liable (not acting merely as agent), the agreement was supported by valuable consideration and was not void under s.70 Employment Ordinance or public policy; accordingly Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the cheque amount with interest.
10 May 2005

RE SINO TRADE ASIA LTD

Citation

RE SINO TRADE ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW827/2004

The court held that there was no bona fide dispute of the petitioning debt on substantial grounds because the written agreements were valid, precluded the alleged no-recourse oral representation, and preserved the Companies' liability even if notice of dishonour was not given; accordingly the Petitioner had locus standi and the Companies were unable to pay their debts, warranting winding-up orders.
27 Jun 2003

THE CHINA STATE BANK LTD v. SINOEARN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

THE CHINA STATE BANK LTD v. SINOEARN INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4192/2002

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.
16 Aug 2002

LI KWOK YIU v. WONG SIK FAI

Citation

LI KWOK YIU v. WONG SIK FAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ11327/2001

The court found the cheques formed part of a settlement (thus constituted consideration), the defendant repeatedly requested non-presentation and promised replacement payments which amounted to an implied waiver of presentment, the plaintiff gave effective notice of dishonour, and there was no evidence supporting any deduction for remedial works; accordingly the defendant was liable on the dishonoured cheque for $80,000 with interest and costs.
26 Jan 2000

HOUSTON MACHINERY CO. LTD. v. LUK CHUNG SHING

Citation

HOUSTON MACHINERY CO. LTD. v. LUK CHUNG SHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA20995/1998

The court accepted that notice of dishonour was dispensed with because the drawee's account was closed, but more importantly held that the defendant's affidavits, supported by Bermian's accountant and documentary evidence, raised believable factual issues as to discharge of liability; therefore there is a triable issue and summary judgment was inappropriate. The Master's order was set aside and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend.
15 Apr 1999

TONG NAI KAN v. CHEUNG KING FUNG FRANCIS

Citation

TONG NAI KAN v. CHEUNG KING FUNG FRANCIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8587/1998

The defendant's account raised triable issues of consideration and misrepresentation that were not 'practically moonshine' and therefore summary judgment was inappropriate; the pleading defect as to notice of dishonour could be cured by amendment, so the defendant must be granted unconditional leave to defend and the plaintiff leave to amend.
16 Jun 1998

HO HON MING v. IP KIN FAN, SAMUEL

Citation

HO HON MING v. IP KIN FAN, SAMUEL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11890/1997

The statement of claim was defective because it merely asserted s.50(2) without pleading the factual reasons why notice of dishonour was dispensed with; the subsequent affidavit evidence did not cure the defective pleading and the defendant's affidavit raised triable issues, therefore the Master's summary judgment order must be set aside and unconditional leave to defend granted.