Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of extrinsic evidence

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2021

ASIA DEVELOP LTD v. GLORY MARK INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1572
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2532/2018

Extrinsic evidence to prove collateral oral contracts is admissible in principle but the defendants' allegations were inherently incredible and not strictly proved; the written loan agreement on its face showed D1 contracted as principal so D1 remained personally liable and D2 was liable as guarantor; no real and bona fide defence was established and there was no reason for trial; appeal dismissed and summary judgment upheld.
1 Mar 2017

HO WAI PING v. HO KA MAN CARMEN

Citation

HO WAI PING v. HO KA MAN CARMEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV17/2016

The Court of Appeal upheld the deputy judge's factual findings that the handwritten document embodied the deceased's testamentary intentions when executed and was not a document intended to operate only upon the contingency of death on his trip; extrinsic evidence could be considered to ascertain testamentary intention under s.5(2) but could not be used to convert an on‑its‑face unconditional will into a conditional one; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and applied the correct legal tests, and the appeal was dismissed.
31 May 2016

SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD v. KIT WANG GROUP (CHINA) LTD

Citation

SAVILLS (HONG KONG) LTD v. KIT WANG GROUP (CHINA) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV212/2015

The parol evidence rule applies to the cheque in issue; extrinsic oral evidence cannot be admitted to qualify the absolute undertaking on the cheque and, in any event, the alleged oral agreement is inherently implausible and does not raise a triable issue. The defence of total failure of consideration is premised on the same unbelievable oral agreement and is untenable. Therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff was properly granted and the appeal is dismissed.
23 May 2014

TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV200/2013

Clause 2 was clear and unambiguous and, read in the context of the whole Joint Will, manifested the testators' intention to include all assets beneficially belonging to them (including assets held on trust for the Deceased) within the Joint Will; therefore extrinsic evidence was unnecessary and inadmissible for construction and the plaintiffs' appeal fails.
28 May 2012

PHONEYORK CO LTD v. CHESSON INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

PHONEYORK CO LTD v. CHESSON INTERNATIONAL (HOLDINGS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2192/2007

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the third party, acting as agent of the vendor, made a Sincerity Representation and that contemporaneous documents (the Explanatory Memorandum and endorsement on the cheque) showed the SPA and the cheque were intended to be conditional and not immediately legally operative; accordingly the SPA was not intended to be legally binding, the cheque was delivered conditionally and defendant was not liable on the cheque; parol evidence did not bar proof of conditional delivery under s21 BEO.
17 Jan 2011

LAW SHUK HOI v. LO LOK FUNG KENNETH AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW SHUK HOI v. LO LOK FUNG KENNETH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1053/2008

The plaintiff litigated in substance for his own personal benefit (having advanced a case that he was ultimately the beneficiary), and having failed to seek Beddoe protection the plaintiff is not entitled to an indemnity from the trust for his costs or liability for defendants' costs; neutral defendants are entitled to costs from the trust (indemnity) subject to disallowance for unnecessary participation at the substantive hearing; between the plaintiff and the non-neutral defendants the plaintiff must personally pay 85% of their costs (party-to-party if not agreed).
26 Jul 2010

LAW SHUK HOI v. LO LOK FUNG KENNETH AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW SHUK HOI v. LO LOK FUNG KENNETH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1053/2008

On construction of the Letter of Wishes the Deceased intended to create a trust: Clause (B)(3) imposes a duty on the Plaintiff to provide financial assistance from the specified one third estate to descendants who satisfy the enumerated criteria (mode and terms for assistance are discretionary but not the obligation to provide assistance). The Letter did not address the default at expiry of the perpetuity period; accordingly any unexpended balance upon expiry vests by resulting trust in the estate of the Deceased.
23 Aug 2007

RE GOODWILL CREATION LTD

Citation

RE GOODWILL CREATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1035/2002

The petition was dismissed because the Company established a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the petitioning debt: conflicting evidence, intermingled current account entries and admissible extrinsic evidence raised real doubt about consideration and the true amount owed, such that the debt was not indisputable and the winding-up petition could not stand; costs awarded to the Company with specified apportionment.
19 Jul 2007

CHEUNG HING (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG YU CHOI

Citation

CHEUNG HING (HK) INVESTMENT LTD v. WONG YU CHOI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV273/2006

The Possession Agreement must be construed in its factual matrix which included the provisional/formal Sale and Purchase Agreement requiring vacant possession on completion by 15 August 1998; on proper construction the defendant agreed to repay the fee if completion with vacant possession did not occur on or before that date, and the trial judge's finding that the defendant was liable to repay HK$1,200,000 was upheld.
30 Aug 2006

LAM TAI KWAN v. LO WAI KIT

Citation

LAM TAI KWAN v. LO WAI KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2581/2005

The cheques were regular on their face and the defendant failed to establish fraud or total failure of consideration or any reasonable defence; extrinsic evidence was not admissible to vary the cheques on the basis of a partial failure of consideration, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the defendant liable on the cheques subject to costs order.