Lee Hing Trading Co v. Lau Bing Pang t/a Pang Ching Knitting Factory
Read the full judgment text of HCA 12090/1983 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. This is an action by the plaintiff for the price of goods sold and delivered, alternatively upon cheques which were dishonoured upon presentment for payment. The defendant gave notice of his intention to act in person on 28th February 1984. He does not appear today. He has been called outside the court and there is no answer. I have seen the affirmation of Chan Chi Sing which satisfies me that notice of the application to set down was served at the address given for service by the defendant i
|
HCA012090/1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN
_______________ Coram: Hon. Mantell J. Date of Hearing: 30th May, 1984. Date of Delivery of Judgment: 30th May, 1984. __________ JUDGMENT __________ 1. This is an action by the plaintiff for the price of goods sold and delivered, alternatively upon cheques which were dishonoured upon presentment for payment. The defendant gave notice of his intention to act in person on 28th February 1984. He does not appear today. He has been called outside the court and there is no answer. I have seen the affirmation of Chan Chi Sing which satisfies me that notice of the application to set down was served at the address given for service by the defendant in his notice of intention to act in person and I am also satisfied on the evidence of Wong Hing Yuen that every reasonable effort has been made by the plaintiff to notify the defendant that the hearing was to be today, having been brought in for hearing from the running list, I believe, some time yesterday. Mr. Wong went to the defendant's premises or what were said to be his premises in his notice. He made enquiries and found out from the landlord that the defendant and the defendant's company had moved some time in February presumably at about the time that he gave his notice to act in person, and Mr. Wong left behind at the premises a letter explaining that this action was to be heard today. In the circumstances, I do not think that the plaintiff could have done more and I am satisfied that they have discharged their duty under Order 34 rule 8. Consequently, I gave leave to Mr. Chain to proceed to prove his case. As to that, it is doubtful on the pleadings whether it was necessary for Mr. Chain to prove anything because, I think on a true reading of the amended defence and counterclaim, there is an admission that the goods we re sold and delivered. Lest there be some equivocation in the pleading and out of an abundance of caution, Mr. Chain has proceeded to prove his case through the accountant of the plaintiff company. He told me that the defendant has been invoiced for these goods and that those invoices remain unpaid and further that the cheque which were tendered in payment and which are set out in the Statement of Claim were dishonoured upon presentment for payment, being returned by the bank marked "insufficient funds". Those cheques have been produced. So, I am satisfied the plaintiff is entitled to succeed on both limbs of the claim. It was not necessary, I interpose, for the plaintiff to show that notice of dishonour had been given because the plaintiff is able to pray in aid the provisions of section 50(2)(c)(iv) of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance. 2. Consequently, there will be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of HK$72,388.75 with interest on that sum from the date of the issue of the writ to judgment at 12½% and from the date of judgment until satisfaction of judgment at the prevailing court rate. And the plaintiff shall have the costs of this action.
Representation: Benjamin Chain instructed by King & Co. for plaintiff. Defendant - in person - absent. |