Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Signature authenticity

Legal area

Court

11 Nov 2024

DESIGN THREE LTD 對 NG CHE TSUI trading as WING FUNG ENGINEERING COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1862
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5611/2019

The court accepted the handwriting expert opinion that the defendant's signature on the purported subcontract was probably his and found the factual matrix, documentary evidence and witness testimony (subject to limitations on variation claims) established a main contractor–subcontractor relationship. The court rejected defendant's account as not commercially credible. Variation works were not recoverable because plaintiff failed to prove prior notice and agreement. Accordingly defendant was liable to pay the outstanding contract balance under the subcontract; other claims were dismissed.
20 May 2021

邱丁嬌對陸愛萍

Citation

[2021] HKDC 537
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5429/2017

Court accepted forensic evidence and contemporaneous witness evidence that the 1994 cooperation ding uk agreement was signed by Huang Chang-gui in 1994 and was understood and acted upon; the challenged clauses were not conditions precedent that prevented the agreement from taking effect; plaintiffs established legal and beneficial title to 9A and Lot 2584 and entitlement to possession and registration; defendant's alternative theories (forgery, loan agreement, family trust, adverse possession, limitation) were not supported by credible contemporaneous evidence and were rejected.
26 Jan 2021

TO PUI KUI AND OTHERS v. HULTUCKTONG CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 106
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV27/2016

The court held that on the overall evidence the signatures signified bona fide assent and that voluntary deference to a controlling shareholder (Father) constituted genuine consent for the purposes of the Duomatic principle; the question of whether full knowledge is always required was not engaged, so leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused and the Notices of Motion dismissed with costs awarded.
20 Dec 2019

HO YAT WAH v. CHUNG HANG HIM (the sole executrix named in the will of Madam CHAN YUK MUI, deceased)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA731/2014

Leave was granted because the authenticity of the signature is central, there are non‑fanciful reasons to doubt the single joint expert's attribution of differences to forgery (health could explain differences), the additional reports would not cause significant delay, and costs would not be disproportionate given the high value at stake; a Joint Report would assist and could save trial time.
5 Jul 2016

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE CO LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS

Citation

CAPITAL WEALTH FINANCE CO LTD v. LAI YUEH HSING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA686/2012

The court allowed the plaintiff to appoint a new expert because fairness and case management required it given the expert had acted for defendants without plaintiff's knowledge; the 23 March 2016 order was varied to provide a staged process for production (plaintiff to notify examination methods within 14 days of appointment, defendants to respond within 7 days, production within 7 days after agreement); no Unless Order was made because plaintiff had not yet identified a replacement expert; costs of the summons ordered to be costs in the cause.
10 Sept 2009

CHAN KIN LAM v. SUNRAY CAVE LTD

Citation

CHAN KIN LAM v. SUNRAY CAVE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1997/2006

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged 2005 agreement: objective commercial circumstances, contemporaneous documents showing payments at HK$2,460 per trip, inherent implausibility of the long fixed-term high-rate contract, and the plaintiff's unreliable testimony made the defendant's account more likely; claim dismissed.
1 Mar 1999

STANDARD CHARTERED FINANCE LTD. v. WAI FAT MOTORS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED FINANCE LTD. v. WAI FAT MOTORS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9254/1995

The 3rd Defendant satisfied the court that he has a real prospect of success on the issue that the Guarantee may not cover the 16 Short Term Loan Agreements because the Wholesale Finance Loan Agreement relied on by the Plaintiff is structured as a single-loan agreement and does not make those short term loans 'the subject of' that Agreement; accordingly the default judgment will be set aside in terms of the summons.
18 Dec 1997

LEAN TYE HIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD AND OTHERS

Citation

LEAN TYE HIN v. MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6101/1991

Judge rejected the plaintiff's account, accepted the Bank's contemporaneous records (including signed June 1990 Confirmations and the July 1990 telex), preferred the handwriting expert for the Bank and the Bank officer's evidence, and found both that the January 1990 releases were authorised by the plaintiff and that the sister gave oral authority; accordingly the Bank lawfully released the shares and the plaintiff's claim failed.
16 Sept 1993

MANY WISE INVESTMENTS LTD. V. TECH PROFIT DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

MANY WISE INVESTMENTS LTD. V. TECH PROFIT DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2892/1993

The court held that the apparent differences in signatures were satisfactorily explained by the passage of time and different writing implements and were corroborated by other contemporaneous documents, and that the statutory presumption of capacity under s.22 was not rebutted in respect of the mark made by Tam Kam Ting; therefore both requisitions were unjustified or sufficiently answered.
11 Nov 1974

THE CANTON TRUST & COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. FUI MEN-TAK FORMERLY t/a WEI TAK TAILORS AND MANDARIN PRODUCTS CO AND OTHERS

Citation

THE CANTON TRUST & COMMERCIAL BANK LTD v. FUI MEN-TAK FORMERLY t/a WEI TAK TAILORS AND MANDARIN PRODUCTS CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA609/1971

The bank drafted the guarantee and omitted any 'on demand' clause; that omission manifested an intention that the guarantor be immediately liable without prior demand, so limitation does not start from an unmade demand; nevertheless limitation rules (Parr's principle) restrict recovery to advances within six years prior to the writ, limiting the plaintiff to interest accrued in that period from the third defendant; judgment against the fourth defendant entered because he failed to prosecute his signature denial and handwriting expert evidence favors the bank.