The China State Bank Ltd. v. Wong Chun Ying t/a Wing Fung Hong Co.
Read the full judgment text of HCA 10825/1999 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 13 June 2000.
1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the summary judgment granted by the master in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of two cheques : one in the sum of $550,00, the other in the sum of $600,000, totalling the sum of $1.15 million and the payment for which had not been made. The plaintiff had sued the defendant as drawer of the cheque, and it claims as holder in due course under section 29 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance.
Cited by 8 cases
|
HCA010825A/1999 HCA10825/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO.10825 OF 1999 -------------------------
--------------------- Coram: Hon Waung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 13 June 2000 Date of Judgment: 13 June 2000 ---------------------- J U D G M E N T ---------------------- 1. This is an appeal by the defendant from the summary judgment granted by the master in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of two cheques : one in the sum of $550,00, the other in the sum of $600,000, totalling the sum of $1.15 million and the payment for which had not been made. The plaintiff had sued the defendant as drawer of the cheque, and it claims as holder in due course under section 29 of the Bills of Exchange Ordinance. 2. There is no dispute that the essential requirements of the section have been fulfilled, namely, first, that the cheques were complete and regular on their face and that the plaintiff took the cheques before they were overdue. When the plaintiff took the cheques, they were without notice that there was any defect in the title of the person who negotiated them, and that they took them in good faith and for value. None of these aspects had been disputed or are disputable. 3. It seems to me, therefore, that all the requirements of section 29 have been fulfilled and the plaintiff is clearly a holder in due course of the two cheques. There is no defence to the claim and the master was quite right in granting summary judgment. 4. The appeal therefore must be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
Representation: Ms Glenys Newall, instructed by Messrs K.W. Ng & Co., for the Plaintiff Defendant in person, present |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 10825/1999