Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2022

WONG WAI LAM 對 FUNG TAT YUEN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1020
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5488/2018

The court accepted the two signed acknowledgement of debt documents as establishing total principal of HK$411,572, deducted the admitted payments of HK$136,182 leaving HK$275,390 outstanding; the defendant's account of paying RMB300,000 to the collector was inherently implausible, unsupported by receipts or credible corroboration, raised unresolved currency conversion and timing issues and was rejected; accordingly the defendant was ordered to pay the outstanding principal, interest and costs.
24 Jan 2019

JYOTSNA TEXTILE PROCESSORS PRIVATE LTD v. SONAKARAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 213
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2175/2014

Plaintiff proved delivery and that the first two consignments were inspected and accepted by the buyer; defendant produced no evidence to rebut plaintiff's case or to show the complained defects related to the unpaid invoices; WhatsApp messages and payment records established payments had been arranged and that after accounting for a credit balance the 1st Defendant owed US$134,496.49; accordingly judgment was entered for that sum with interest as per precedent and costs to the Plaintiff.
4 Dec 2012

嚴惠玲對林沛儀

Citation

嚴惠玲對林沛儀
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2011/2012

On the evidence the Tribunal found total rent paid from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2010 equalled HK$119,600 and that the HK$44,000 under the 25 Aug 2004 agreement had not been shown to have been repaid and was to be treated as rent for 2011–12 per the agreement; accordingly the respondent did not owe rent and the applicant's possession and rent recovery application was dismissed.
10 Jul 2009

MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD

Citation

MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3303/2007

The court found objective documentary evidence established two separate contracts with distinct terms and delivery dates; payment by cheque on 22 June 2007 made the first contract's delivery due by 6 July 2007; Defendant failed and unjustifiably refused to deliver and effectively aborted performance; Plaintiff entitled to refund of paid sums with interest and costs; Defendant's arguments of one contract, export problems and Plaintiff's changing instructions did not excuse failure to deliver and were rejected.
17 Dec 2008

WESTCO CHINNEY LTD v. LEE TUNG CONSTRUCTION AND DECORATION CO LTD

Citation

WESTCO CHINNEY LTD v. LEE TUNG CONSTRUCTION AND DECORATION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6229/2006

Documentary evidence of signed quotations and letters of confirmation, together with invoices addressed to Defendant, established a direct contractual relationship and acceptance by Defendant; therefore Defendant was liable to pay Plaintiff the claimed sum and the set-off arrangement with Long Ki did not absolve Defendant of that liability.
14 Sept 2006

SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD

Citation

SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4708/2003

The court found on the evidence that the 1st Plaintiff was not a party to the 5th and 6th contracts and therefore lacked standing to sue for breach of those contracts; the plaintiffs failed to prove the goods were defective because the expert tests used unrealistic conditions (90°C water) and thus had no probative value; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim against the 2nd Plaintiff for unpaid invoices (HK$42,778.20) succeeded.
6 Sept 2006

ULTRA POWER E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HAR ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

ULTRA POWER E & M ENGINEERING CO LTD v. HAR ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2773/2006

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.
6 Jun 2006

HON TEC TRAVEL LTD v. YIP CHUN MAN ALBERT

Citation

HON TEC TRAVEL LTD v. YIP CHUN MAN ALBERT
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6240/2004

The judge found the defendant not credible and the plaintiff's witnesses (in particular the subpoenaed employee) generally reliable, concluded on the balance of probabilities that the defendant neither paid the debt nor handed over the original acknowledgment, and therefore entered judgment for the plaintiff for HK$128,110 with interest and costs.
25 Apr 2003

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD

Citation

AMERY CONSTRUCTION WATER PROOFING CO LTD v. YUE HING LAND INVESTMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16179/2001

Although the plaintiff had not complied with the contract requirement to complete rectification works to the Architect's satisfaction making the action premature on the basis pleaded, the interim certificate dated 20 December 2000 nevertheless created a debt for the certified sum; the court accepted the QS final account of 19 March 2003 as reflecting the parties' accounts and, applying Order 15 Rule 2(4), gave judgment for the balance of HK$186,367.49 in favour of the plaintiff while reserving costs and interest for further hearing.
19 May 2000

CHATEAU LTD. v. BERMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Citation

CHATEAU LTD. v. BERMAN INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11642/1998

The judge preferred the plaintiff's evidence and documentary record, found that the plaintiff manufactured and delivered the goods under a subcontractual arrangement and that the defendant is liable to pay US$22,095.99 (or HKD equivalent) for the unpaid second and third shipments, with interest at 1% above Hong Kong Bank prime from the date of writ to judgment and judgment rate thereafter, and costs to be taxed and paid by the defendant.