Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and authority

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

官世傑對關秩安及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1151
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV318/2024

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.
27 Jun 2025

DLA PIPER HONG KONG (a firm) v. TSOI CHIK SANG LAWRENCE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2721
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA446/2023

Summary judgment was appropriate because plaintiff established a prima facie claim for the taxed outstanding invoices and the defendant’s sole defence (non-delivery to him personally) was unarguable: delivery to Ms Ang was effective under express authority in the engagement letters and the defendant’s admission that invoices were delivered to Fonduet was fatal given joint retainer liability. The defendant’s counterclaim failed for lack of necessary particulars and credible evidence on misrepresentation, deceit, conspiracy and alleged champerty; proposed amendments would not produce an arguabl…
26 Feb 2025

YAU SANG GALVANIZING (HOT-DIP) COMPANY LTD (formerly known as YAU SANG GALVANIZERS (HOT-DIP) COMPANY LTD v. FASHION TRESS (AMERICA) ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 529
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1702/2021

On the balance of probabilities neither party proved its pleaded case: plaintiff failed to prove the existence and terms of a licence; defendants failed to prove an enforceable oral sale and that Mr Choi had authority; absent contemporaneous documentary evidence and given inconsistencies in witness evidence, the alleged agreements were not established; accordingly both claim and counterclaim are dismissed and no costs ordered on a nisi basis.
7 Jun 2024

LI JIA HENG v. GOLDEN WORLD MOTORS (INTERNATIONAL) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 888
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2932/2020

On the facts the deposit was paid and received on a joint understanding that the Agreement would become binding; that basis wholly failed because the vehicle was not delivered and no binding contract was completed; the defendant failed to prove change of position or bona fide purchaser defences (failed to prove delivery to Wong or application of the deposit); plaintiff entitled to restitution of HK$320,000 plus interest and defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
6 Jul 2023

OCI CAPITAL LTD v. LANHAI INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1804
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1499/2019

The amendment was refused because it raised a new, unparticularised allegation that the 2nd Defendant entered the Oral Agreement through an agent; the plaintiffs offered no adequate explanation for the late application; the lack of particulars and the defendants' inability to obtain instructions or evidence from a key person (Mr Mi), who is uncontactable and under investigation, created real prejudice. The VCF application was allowed only for the 2nd Defendant whose travel is presently prohibited by mainland authorities, but refused for the other witness (Ms Lu) because the evidence did not s…
29 May 2023

萬億置業國際有限公司對 MCP LTD

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 43
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE190/2022

The Tribunal's prior judgment was correct and will be affirmed: the respondent failed to prove an enforceable oral waiver or that Covid-19 measures frustrated the lease; the Tribunal did not err in case management or in its evidential assessments (documentary evidence prevailed); the contested correspondence was either not a genuine without prejudice settlement communication or privilege was waived; respondent remains liable for the rent arrears, losses and restoration costs and must pay the costs of the review.
17 Jan 2023

RAINBOW MORTGAGE SERVICES LTD 對 LI MAN LAI

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 141
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3357/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the plaintiff's evidence: the defendant executed the loan documents on 14 August 2015, received $943,000, and Mark Wong/Asia Hong Zhi were not agents of the plaintiff; accordingly the loan agreement is binding and the defendant is ordered to repay principal of HK$943,000 with contractual interest at 30% per annum from 14 August 2015 until full payment, and to pay the plaintiff's costs.
23 Nov 2022

HENG WAH (HONG KONG) DECORATION CO LTD v. BONJOUR HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3487
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA999/2021

There is a triable issue as to which corporate entity contracted with the Plaintiff; Bonjour Holdings raised a credible defence that Bonjour Cosmetic was the contracting party given payments and accounting were conducted by Bonjour Cosmetic, the invoices/quotations were dated after performance and lacked company chop, and key actors wore multiple corporate hats, so summary judgment was inappropriate and the Master\u2019s grant of leave to Bonjour Holdings to defend must be upheld; the additional affirmation Wong 2nd was not admitted for lack of special grounds.
17 Jul 2020

BRIGHT GOLD LTD v. MEGA WELL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCA 575
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV66/2019

The Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge's finding that Centaline acted as Bright Gold's agent was plainly wrong and unsupported by the evidence; Bright Gold could not be held liable for Centaline's alleged oral misrepresentations, the trial judge's misapplication of evidence (Sales Brochure and WKLL meeting witness Lau) warranted setting aside the findings against Bright Gold, rectification of the SPA was ordered, Mega Well's counterclaim against Bright Gold was dismissed, and the claim against Centaline was remitted for re-trial.
1 Jun 2020

FREEMAN SECURITIES LTD v. IP PO KI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1048
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2368/2018

The defendant failed to raise any bona fide arguable defence or triable issue: the alleged oral agreement and implied terms were inherently improbable and contradicted the written margin agreement and commercial common sense; the HK$70,000,000 alleged loan was implausible in the manner it was deposited; and the fraud exception did not apply because allegations of fraud were only directed at non-parties. Therefore summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff for the principal, contractual pre-judgment interest and costs.