Skip to main content
追討易EASYDEBT
Free Assessment
Trade payment recovery success case
Trade PaymentWon — Full Amount Recovered

Three Deliveries, All Signed — Restaurant Refused to Pay Anyway

A food ingredient supplier made three deliveries to a restaurant, each signed off by the restaurant's own staff. When the owner refused to pay two invoices citing quality concerns, the supplier filed with the Small Claims Tribunal and recovered the full amount.

TRIBUNAL OUTCOMESmall Claims Tribunal · claim ceiling HK$75,000
RecoveredHK$31,500
ClaimedHK$31,500
CostsBorne by the other side

Recovered in full — Won — Full Amount Recovered

  1. FiledDay 0
  2. Hearing—
  3. RulingDay 75

AGAINST THE OTHERSAcross 9 published illustrative cases the median is 75 days and HK$22,000. This one ran 75 days, right on that median.

Free case assessment (WhatsApp)See how filing assistance works

We talk through whether your claim is worth pursuing first. The assessment is free.

Background

Our client was a food ingredient wholesaler who had been supplying a restaurant in Kwun Tong for several months. Over a two-month period, three separate deliveries were made totalling HK$31,500. On each occasion, a restaurant staff member signed the delivery note to confirm receipt.

The first delivery was paid without issue. After the third delivery, the restaurant owner abruptly claimed there had been quality problems with the second and third batches and refused to pay the outstanding HK$31,500. The supplier pointed out that no complaint — written or verbal — had been raised at the time of delivery or in the weeks that followed. The quality issue was raised only when the supplier began chasing payment.

How We Helped

When the supplier came to us, they had the original delivery notes (all signed by restaurant staff) and the corresponding invoices. Their concern was that if the restaurant raised quality arguments at the hearing, the technical nature of the dispute might work against them.

We helped the supplier:

  1. Organise the delivery evidence: Three signed delivery notes, each with the date and staff signature, directly confirming receipt of goods
  2. Build the complaint timeline: No written complaint was ever raised — not at delivery, not in the days following, and not until the supplier chased for payment
  3. Prepare the claim form: Setting out each delivery, the invoice amounts, and the signed confirmation records
  4. Hearing preparation: Helping the supplier explain why the absence of contemporaneous complaints is significant — and how to respond if quality is raised at the hearing

Outcome

At the hearing, the restaurant owner alleged the goods were not fit for consumption, but was unable to produce any laboratory report, health inspection record, or written complaint made at or around the time of delivery. The Adjudicator found the quality objection to be an afterthought raised only to avoid payment, and ruled in the supplier's favour — ordering the restaurant to pay the full outstanding amount of HK$31,500.

Key Takeaway

In goods payment disputes, signed delivery notes are powerful evidence. They establish that goods were received without objection at the time. If a buyer later raises quality concerns, the key question becomes: why was no complaint made when the goods arrived? The absence of contemporaneous written objection is very difficult to explain convincingly.

This is an illustrative case, adapted from the kinds of matter the Hong Kong Small Claims Tribunal hears. It is not the record of an identifiable client, and no outcome shown here is a promise about yours.