Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The District Court held that the distributor agreement was extended by conduct, PPM Mexico acted as the defendant’s agent, and the defendant owed the unpaid price and interest.
The District Court dismissed an investor’s claim against a precious metals platform, finding no authority for the agents’ conduct, no implied terms or fiduciary duties, and no Quincecare breach.
The Court of First Instance held there was no proved investment agreement, but found the borrowers jointly liable to DDF and ordered contribution and repayment sums.
The Court of First Instance held that Jesus Is Lord Church Limited validly exercised an option to purchase premises under a lease-purchase agreement and defeated the landlord’s possession claim.
The Court of First Instance dismissed the defendant’s appeal, allowed most proposed pleading amendments, and held the pre-July 2019 investment-related pleas could proceed.
Court accepted plaintiff's evidence and contemporaneous documents, found defendant failed to prove proprietary estoppel or any beneficial interest in the Lai Wah Court property (license revoked and 27/02/2023 letter admissions decisive); found defendant acted without authority in leasing Fuk Wah Street premises and must account for profits; found HK$950,000 was obtained by undue influence (and supported by admissions in recordings) and must be repaid with interest; awarded costs to plaintiff (interim).
Source excerpt
The court held that two directors had actual authority under the company’s articles to issue the bond, and that the bond transaction was supported by consideration.
The District Court held that the defendant personally undertook to pay her late mother’s hospital charges, rejecting arguments of agency, mutual understanding and misrepresentation.
The Lands Tribunal ordered vacant possession and held the tenant liable for HK$103,000 in arrears, despite payments mistakenly made to the former agent.
The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings — that the appellant did not first know or introduce the purchaser, did not establish that YK was the appellant's agent or authorized representative, and that the appellant's actions did not constitute the effective cause of the sale — were reasonable and not shown to be perverse; accordingly the appellant was not entitled to the contractual commission.
Source excerpt
Explore more
