He Jitong v. Fung Ho Ming Ivan

DCCJ 1710/2021

[2022] HKDC 727

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1710 OF 2021

---------------------------

---------------------------

Before:  Deputy District Judge B Mak in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Hearing:  15 July 2022

Date of Decision:  25 July 2022

----------------------

DECISION

----------------------

Introduction

1.This is the defendant’s appeal against the decision of Master Maurice Lam dated 15 February 2022 giving summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

2.At the hearing, the defendant was absent.

3.I dismissed the defendant’s appeal and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in the sum of $48,000. Here are my reasons.

Notice of hearing

4.When the defendant filed the notice of appeal on 28 February 2022, he was represented by Messrs Leung & Lien, Solicitors. When the hearing date of the appeal was fixed on 13 April 2022, he was still so represented.

5.The defendant filed a notice to act in person on 7 July 2022.

6.I am satisfied that the defendant has had notice of the hearing of this appeal and has chosen not to appear nor to lodge any written submission.

Legal principles on appeal against Master’s decision

7.An appeal from the master to the judge in chambers is dealt with by way of an actual rehearing. A judge hearing an appeal from a master is entitled to adopt the master’s reasoning in his own judgment without setting out the reasoning himself: see 58/1/2 Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2022 Vol 1.

Decision

8.For the purpose of this appeal, the defendant has advanced nothing.

9.Master Maurice Lam in his decision dealt with all the grounds raised by counsel for the defendant, namely,

(a)  whether there was intention for the plaintiff and the defendant to enter into a legally binding contract by drawing the cheque;

(b)  whether the cheque was delivered upon conditions;

(c)  whether the plaintiff is estopped from presenting the cheque for payment or claiming against the defendant on the cheque; and

(d)  whether there was a total lack of consideration.

10.The learned Master has given detailed reasons for rejecting all those grounds.

11.I would gratefully adopt the reasoning of the learned Master and do not think there is anything I can add.

13.Accordingly, the defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

Costs

14.Costs to follow the event. The defendant should bear the plaintiff’s costs of this appeal and I also grant a certificate for counsel.

15.By summary assessment, I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff costs in the sum of $48,000.

Mr Au Hue Yeung, Authur, instructed by Dickman L T Chan & Co, for the plaintiff

The defendant was not represented and absent