Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and attribution

Legal area

Court

24 Jan 2025

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 2
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDMP1/2023

The tribunal held the injunction required, by its terms and purpose, that the respondent achieve the result of stopping water seepage; on the evidence and beyond reasonable doubt the respondent had not achieved that result by the deadline and manifested a contemptuous state of mind; contractors and consultants were held to have been authorised to act for the respondent so their conduct and knowledge were attributable; accordingly the committal and related orders were justified and leave to appeal was refused.
19 Oct 2023

PATRICK COX ASIA LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2676
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA4/2023

The Board’s factual findings that the taxpayer conducted the licensing business in Hong Kong and that the profit‑producing acts (entering the Deed of Cooperation and granting sub‑licences) took place in Hong Kong were supported by evidence; accordingly the 40% royalties and the upfront payment were sourced in Hong Kong; the upfront payment was a revenue receipt received in the ordinary course of the taxpayer’s licensing business and not a capital sum, so the appeal is dismissed.
6 Jan 2022

MUST RICH CONSTRUCTION LTD v. CHAN KA LOK AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 23
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6619/2020

The claim against the 1st to 3rd defendants was struck out because the Written Contract on its face named only the plaintiff and Sky Unique, there were no pleaded material facts to establish an agency relationship between Sky Unique and the defendants, reliance on a subsequent action did not cure the absence of pleaded facts, and the claim was therefore frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; accordingly the striking-out order and vacatur of the Land Registry entry were made and indemnity costs awarded to the defendants.
5 Oct 2007

ING BARING SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Citation

ING BARING SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV19/2006

The appellate court held that the disputed commission, placement and marketing incomes were earned only upon execution or performance of securities transactions outside Hong Kong; the profit‑producing acts occurred offshore and the profits were not derived from Hong Kong. The Board erred by applying a diffuse multifactorial test focused on antecedent/research/administration and by treating insufficiencies in peripheral evidence as determinative; on the facts and agreed evidence the taxpayer discharged its burden and assessments must be reduced accordingly.
2 Oct 2003

FUNG TIN SANG t/a DRAGON TRADING CO v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

Citation

FUNG TIN SANG t/a DRAGON TRADING CO v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2747/2001

The Court dismissed the appeal because the Lands Tribunal validly found as a fact that the applicant did not act reasonably to mitigate loss (including failure to seek or take up suitable alternative premises and attribution of his agent's failures to him); those findings were supported by evidence and disclosed no error of law, so the applicant was not entitled to compensation on a total extinguishment basis.
24 Oct 2002

HONG KONG PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL v. ZI CORPORATION (H.K.) LTD.

Citation

HONG KONG PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL v. ZI CORPORATION (H.K.) LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ17643/2001

The defendant's denials and alternative pleas raised credible triable issues when assessed against the contemporaneous documents and background; the August 2001 letter is a without prejudice settlement communication and inadmissible; accordingly summary judgment is inappropriate and the defendant is granted unconditional leave to defend.
18 Dec 2001

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. INDOSUEZ W I CARR SECURITIES LTD.

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. INDOSUEZ W I CARR SECURITIES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA5/2001

The court allowed inspection of the Commissioner's Determination for the limited purpose of clarifying the context and meaning of the passage quoted in the Case Stated because doing so would not re-open or re-decide primary facts but would determine whether an alleged admission related to overseas brokers or the group's overseas offices; this use of the Determination is permissible under Carvill and distinguishable from attempts to re-hear facts condemned in the Aspiration Land decisions.

Hong Kong Case Law

SIN CHAN KAM 對 THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF WAI SUN BUILDING

PATRICK COX ASIA LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

MUST RICH CONSTRUCTION LTD v. CHAN KA LOK AND OTHERS

ING BARING SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD v. THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

FUNG TIN SANG t/a DRAGON TRADING CO v. THE SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT

HONG KONG PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL v. ZI CORPORATION (H.K.) LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. INDOSUEZ W I CARR SECURITIES LTD.