Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Affirmation of contract

Legal area

Court

23 Feb 2026

FAR EAST RENT-A-CAR LTD v. FAVOUR LINK INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 336
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1206/2023

Contemporaneous documents showed plaintiff irrevocably affirmed the contracts so it could not treat defendant's conduct as a repudiatory discharge; plaintiff's deliberate non-disclosure of key financial documents justified adverse inferences and reduction of claimed damages, leading the court to adopt defendant's Scott Schedule and award limited damages netting a payment of HK$61,324.50 to the plaintiff, with costs in favour of defendant subject to an order nisi.
23 Sept 2025

HUNDSUN AYERS TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. BRILLIANT NORTON SECURITIES COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1622
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5345/2023

No written 90‑day termination notice was given; defendant was in repudiatory breach by non‑payment from November 2022; plaintiff validly elected to affirm the contract and claim the contractual sums under Clause 9.3 through the expiry of the renewed term; defendant liable for HK$1,391,667.44 plus interest and costs.
26 May 2025

WONG WAI KAI v. LOH YIU KEUNG (also known as DENNIS LOH)

Citation

[2025] HKDC 853
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5175/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court found the defendant represented that Holy Legal had the invitation/admission to the Dubai World Cup, that representation was false, the plaintiff relied on it and validly rescinded the oral sale agreement; although fraud was not proved, under Misrepresentation Ordinance s3 the defendant failed to prove the representation was innocent and an adverse inference was drawn from his failure to produce contemporaneous evidence (notably from Mr Colombo); the alleged 22 January agreement and subsequent Joint Ownership Agreement were not established; accordingl…
27 Nov 2023

ROBERT JOHN FRANCIS BROTHERS AND ANOTHER v. NEW RUI INTERNATIONAL CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3062
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA654/2023

On the facts the Defendant, by its correspondence and conduct (notably the 8 November 2022 letter and the 16 January 2023 position reinforced by letters of 1 and 16 February 2023 and its attempts to work out remedial plans with DLO), acted inconsistently with an intention to rescind and thereby unequivocally affirmed the SPA; rescission is therefore not a triable issue and the $10 million tax retention sum held in escrow is to be released to the Plaintiffs; set-off was not pleaded and damages are indeterminate so no stay pending trial was justified.
14 Aug 2012

LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD

Citation

LAM SIU HAY v. CHELEX LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1612/2010

The summons to amend was allowed because the facts relied on were already in the pleadings and witness evidence, the issue was narrow and straightforward, the relevant documents could be obtained by subpoena, and the plaintiff could file consequential amendments by the date given; the supplemental witness statement was admitted and no order as to costs was made for the argument.
5 Mar 2012

MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO FOON YUNG ANESIS AND OTHERS

Citation

MASTER YIELD LTD v. HO FOON YUNG ANESIS AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA866/2008

No representation by conduct was established; although the court found Mr Ho had represented that IO approval was not required, that representation was not material and did not induce the tenancy; plaintiff's other conduct affirmed the agreement and failed to mitigate; accordingly plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
30 Jan 2008

INDUSTRY AUTOMATION LDC v. UNI LINK LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

INDUSTRY AUTOMATION LDC v. UNI LINK LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12467/1998

Clause 2.1 required only appointment of Ernst & Young to carry out an audit, not a guarantee to procure completion; no term compelling procurement of completion could be implied as necessary; Plaintiff, having continued to exercise shareholder rights and press for performance after any repudiatory breach, affirmed the Agreement and lost the right to terminate; the Agreement was not frustrated because a usable audited result (including qualified reports) or alternative means of calculation were available or contemplated; consequential claims dismissed.
30 Mar 2007

FUJI XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD v. VIGERS HONG KONG LTD

Citation

FUJI XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD v. VIGERS HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV311/2006

The Court of Appeal held the plaintiff was not obliged to accept the defendant's repudiation and was entitled to keep the contracts alive and sue for the contractual sums because the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in doing so, there was no finding it had refused or been unable to perform, and alternatives (repossession and resale) would not have been equally advantageous given the machines were unsellable.
22 Dec 2005

CHUI CHI TANG v. EDICO DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUI CHI TANG v. EDICO DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3239/2005

The defendant's letter of 22 November 2000 amounted to a prima facie affirmation of the original 7 October 1991 agreement such that the defendant's strike out application based on section 4(1) limitation failed; therefore the statement of claim against the 1st defendant will not be struck out, while the claim against the 2nd defendant is struck out on plaintiff's concession.
6 Oct 2003

ALFRED SIU WING FUNG v. PROSPER eVISION LTD

Citation

ALFRED SIU WING FUNG v. PROSPER eVISION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3136/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant's pleaded defences and counterclaim were inconsistent, lacked particulars, were unsupported by contemporaneous documents and commercial reality, and thus did not disclose a real and reasonable probability of success at trial; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiff was properly affirmed.