Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and ostensible authority

Legal area

Court

9 Feb 2022

KOO WAI LAU v. WONG KIN SUN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 434
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA875/2021

Summary judgment was granted because the defendant failed to demonstrate a believable triable defence: the alleged oral representation was indefinite and inherently not credible (no fixed repayment date or definite reduced rate), the defendant conceded liability and quantum, the plaintiff's evidence sufficiently verified and accounted for payments, and the inaccuracy of a warranty in the assignment did not create a triable issue.
12 Aug 2008

PAUL Y. MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PAUL Y. MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2008

Defendants had produced credible, evidence‑based triable issues (contemporaneous documents, conduct and surrounding circumstances linking the Loan Deed to the alleged Master Agreement) such that it was inappropriate to grant summary judgment; accordingly the summary judgment was set aside and defendants granted unconditional leave to defend.
13 Mar 2007

ANTHONY CHARLES DESIR v. AJAX PONG MACHINERY LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ANTHONY CHARLES DESIR v. AJAX PONG MACHINERY LEASING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV249/2006

The Court held the trial judge's factual finding that the contract was between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant was not plainly wrong given the evidence and conduct (including correspondence) and the late and unsubstantiated contention that UGTCL was the contracting party; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
16 Nov 1999

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. SZETO CHUNG

Citation

KEEP POINT DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. SZETO CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4739/1999

The agreements were executed by a person without authority and Messrs. Ho & Chan were not the Plaintiff's solicitors for those transactions; there was no sufficient evidence of holding out or estoppel to bind the Plaintiff; therefore the agreements are null and void as against the Plaintiff, the defendants are restrained from registering them, and existing registrations in specified actions must be vacated.
18 Dec 1997

BRUCE PORTER BARON v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO AND OTHERS

Citation

BRUCE PORTER BARON v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9031/1993

The judge held that the insurance policy claim failed because the policy was void ab initio for material non-disclosure of the insured's medical history; however the broker (2nd/3rd Defendants) breached a duty of care by misleading and concealing material facts and by failing to inform the plaintiff that the policy was paid up and might cover murder. The broker was the agent of the insured, not of the insurers. Although liability for breach of duty was established against the broker, the plaintiff could not prove on the balance of probabilities that he suffered quantifiable loss recoverable f…
28 Jul 1995

MANCIPLE LTD. v. CHAR ON MAN

Citation

MANCIPLE LTD. v. CHAR ON MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV64/1995

The Court concluded the defendant's factual account was inherently incredible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, and that the asserted illegality under Japanese law was not an arguable defence because the shares were not registered in the defendant's name and holding as nominee (or via Japanese juridical entities) did not render the contract unenforceable; accordingly there was no triable issue and summary judgment was properly entered and should be reinstated.
24 Nov 1988

THE QUEEN v. MOLESWORTH LIMITED

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOLESWORTH LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA950/1988

The Magistrate erred in admitting and/or relying upon Exhs. P3, P4, P5 and P7 because the prosecution failed to prove they were company documents or were signed by persons with actual or ostensible authority and failed to satisfy the conditions of section 22; consequently there was insufficient evidence to establish the employer–employee relationship or breach of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and the conviction could not be sustained.
30 Jun 1988

REFCO INC v. TROIKA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

REFCO INC v. TROIKA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/1988

The Court held that the pleaded causes alleging implied terms in the Clearing Agreement, a collateral warranty/representation and agency were arguable on the pleadings and leave to re-amend should be permitted for those causes; however the pleaded allegation of fraud (that Tai Fook never intended to support Troika) lacked the necessary particularity and foundation and the re-amendment on fraud was rightly refused; Tai Fook's cross-appeal to strike out the contractual cause was dismissed.
28 Jan 1974

COLTRONICS LTD v. HARBER INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

COLTRONICS LTD v. HARBER INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2648/1973

The court found the plaintiff had a solid prima facie case that the 16 November 1972 letter might validly vary the May agreement and that there was sufficient evidence that Mr White might have had authority; on balance of convenience interlocutory relief was necessary to preserve the status quo and prevent potentially irreparable loss to the plaintiff, provided security was given.