Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance of offer

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD v. TARJOTO HERU HIDAJAT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 22
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV267/2025

The stay was refused because the appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success: there was no clear acceptance of any refinancing offer (communications, including WhatsApp, demonstrate decline or counter-offer), the bank was entitled to decide whether to grant refinancing, the facility letters and their declarations did not create a binding refinancing agreement without signature, and the defendants' insurance and consumer loan complaints do not provide a defence to enforcement of the mortgage.
23 Dec 2025

CHAN YAU YAM v. DR HO SAI CHEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 2130
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI2438/2024

On objective interpretation, JSM’s 6 August 2025 letter and the Notice of Acceptance plainly and unconditionally accepted the Re-Amended Sanctioned Offer under Order 22 r16(1); the accompanying draft consent summons merely proposed additional terms for the Plaintiff’s consideration and did not render the acceptance conditional or equivocal; the Master had jurisdiction under Practice Direction 18.1 para 116 to determine the procedural dispute at the CLR hearing; the Plaintiff’s fresh affirmations were excluded because they were further evidence and failed Ladd v Marshall (not likely to affect…
30 Oct 2025

FU SAU TAI, RAYMOND v. WOO KWONG PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1845
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5546/2020

The court applied Order 22 r23 RDC and held it was not unjust to enforce its consequences: the 1st Plaintiff, who was legally represented and had access to relevant material, failed to accept a HK$75,000 sanctioned payment or seek leave to accept out of time; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied to award party-and-party costs up to 14 October 2021 and indemnity costs from 15 October 2021 with an enhanced interest rate of 3% per annum above judgment rate until 29 May 2025 and judgment rate thereafter; the sanctioned payment to be paid out to defendants.
8 Mar 2024

HONG KONG BALANCE INTERNATIONAL TRADING & LOGISTICS CO., LTD v. KWOK YIK HUNG and NG KWOK WAI t/a ALPHA HEALTHCARE & TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 322
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3716/2021

Because (a) the contracting party under the First Contract was Deng personally (not the Plaintiff) and Alpha Healthcare delivered the masks, (b) Chan had no actual or apparent authority to accept payments into his personal account and the invoices expressly prescribed payment to Alpha Healthcare, and (c) the Plaintiff failed to inquire despite being put on notice, the Alleged Second and Third Contracts were not concluded and the Plaintiff's claims fail.
23 Oct 2006

NG SHUI CHING v. CHEUNG MAN CHAN AND OTHERS

Citation

NG SHUI CHING v. CHEUNG MAN CHAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI910/2004

The 7 December 2005 letter was objectively addressed to all parties and required acceptance by all addressees; the Calderbank wording did not convert it into an offer capable of unilateral acceptance by the plaintiff, so no binding agreement arose between the plaintiff and the 1st Defendant admitting 85% liability and 15% contributory negligence by the plaintiff.
3 Feb 2005

LEE SIU FONG MARY v. NGAI YEE CHAI

Citation

LEE SIU FONG MARY v. NGAI YEE CHAI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6225/2002

Court found on credibility and evidence that Plaintiff proved only the four admitted loans totalling HK$92,000 and failed to prove the other HK$91,000; there was no binding agreement made on 21.5.1995 but Plaintiff did rely on Defendant's representation and is estopped from pleading limitation from 21.5.1995, so limitation runs from 21.5.2001; judgment entered for Plaintiff for HK$92,000 with interest and costs directions.
6 Aug 2002

KIDS WORLD LTD. v. XL MACHINE LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

KIDS WORLD LTD. v. XL MACHINE LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP125/2002

Summary judgment was refused and defendants were granted leave to defend because there were substantial triable issues material to the claim (whether payments were loans or remittances, allegations of breach of fiduciary duty and secret profits, quality issues and the need for an independent accounting) such that it would be manifestly unjust to enter judgment without resolving the counterclaim/set-off by full accounting; accordingly the O.14 threshold of no defence was not met.
22 May 1970

NG DAI KIM v. WAH CHIT GARMENT FACTORY LTD

Citation

NG DAI KIM v. WAH CHIT GARMENT FACTORY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1258/1970

Because the company's articles required joint director action and no valid acceptance was made, no contract with the company arose; the plaintiff's consideration had wholly failed and the correct remedy was restitution — judgment for repayment of $3,500 and costs.