HALCROW CHINA LTD v. UTEC LTD

DCCJ 6319/2002

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6319 OF 2002

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

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

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

1. This is an O.14 appeal against Master Wong who had entered summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff.

2. It is by way of re-hearing.

3. The Plaintiff's claim is for supply of consultancy services to the Defendant in or about December 1999. On 8/3/00 the Plaintiff issued an invoice to the Defendant for a sum of $758,180.

4. By letter dated 8/6/00 the Defendant by letter agreed to settle the said sum by 6 instalments. The Defendant had paid the 1st two instalments totalling $351,636.00 and failed to pay the 3rd to 6th instalments. The Plaintiff therefore claims the outstanding balance of $406,544.00.

5. The defence put forward is that it had never acknowledged the sum as stated and that the signature in the letter was not signed by James Wong, the ex project director of the Defendant. It was signed by Clive Key an ex-employee of the Defendant instead of James Wong.

6. The Defendant further alleged that the said sum of $351,636 was in full and final settlement of the consultancy services provided by the Plaintiff.

7. The Plaintiff had on 8/3/00 sent an invoice with breakdown figures to the Defendant for the attention of King Wong who was the general manager of the Defendant.

8. On 29/11/01 the Defendant sent a reminder to Johnson Lee.

9. The letter from the Defendant to the Plaintiff dated 8/6/00 no doubt was not signed by James Wong. This is obvious because after the signature it was stated "PP James Wong". Both James Wong and Clive Key held senior positions with the Defendant. There is no explanation as to why they were not authorised or that they were not in a position to issue such letter.

10. It was not disputed that the Plaintiff had provided the service. King Wong as general manager must have authority to commit the Defendant. Further by paying the 1st two instalments the Defendant had by conduct ratified the agreement.

11. On top of that on 22/6/00 Charles Chan, Ip & Fung CPA Ltd. had been authorised by the Defendant to send a letter to the Plaintiff asking for confirmation that $689,000 was due to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on 26/6/00 replied that the amount due was $758,180 as stated in the invoice.

12. Even according to the Defendant it acknowledged a much larger sum due to the Plaintiff than the sum of $351,636.00 that the Defendant claimed was in full and final settlement of the Plaintiff's claim.

13. The evidence against the Defendant was overwhelming. There are no triable issues. The Defendant's appeal is therefore dismissed with costs. Certificate for counsel.