Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency vs principal

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2013

TAIHAN ELECTRIC WIRE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI YUEN ARCTIC AND OTHERS

Citation

TAIHAN ELECTRIC WIRE CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. LEE CHI YUEN ARCTIC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA454/2013

The application for a Mareva injunction was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to show a good arguable case on the merits when the case depended heavily on Lau whose credibility was undermined by inconsistencies and his failure to file an affidavit in reply; the balance of convenience favored defendants in light of the prejudice to D5 and doubts about causation and completeness of evidence; therefore freezing relief was unjustified.
22 Mar 2011

WU SHENG LONG v. C-CORP PRECIOUS METALS LTD

Citation

WU SHENG LONG v. C-CORP PRECIOUS METALS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1912/2008

Defendant sold plaintiff's silver without lawful right and is liable for conversion; no implied contractual or common law duties required defendant to monitor market or close positions; parties dealt as principals for London gold so no agent lien arose; equitable set-off unavailable because defendant wrongfully converted plaintiff's property; plaintiff entitled to market-value damages as of sale date (16 Oct 2008); defendant entitled to judgment on full deficit from liquidation but execution stayed for set-off pending assessment.
15 Jul 2009

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. DATATRONIC LTD

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. DATATRONIC LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV275/2008

The Court held that the source of taxable profits is determined by the profit‑producing transactions themselves; DSC carried on manufacturing on its own account and sold to the taxpayer, the taxpayer's profit arose from resale in Hong Kong, antecedent mainland activities were incidental, DIPN 21 is a non‑binding concession and could not justify apportionment; accordingly the Board of Review's conclusions that profits were partly sourced in the Mainland and that a 50:50 apportionment applied were wrong and were reversed.
27 Jun 2007

PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PLEXIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER v. JIN TIN INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1058/2006

On the evidence and documents before the court the 1st defendant was trading in its own right as seller (pro forma invoices and demand letter describing D1 as seller); the balance sheet defence lacked particularity and was unsustainable; the alleged oral agency agreement was not credible on the surrounding circumstances; accordingly judgment is entered for the plaintiffs against D1.
14 Mar 2007

DART EXPRESS (S) PTE LTD v. SUPERSPEED TRANSPORTATION LTD

Citation

DART EXPRESS (S) PTE LTD v. SUPERSPEED TRANSPORTATION LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ614/2005

Defendant's pleaded case and affidavit were inconsistent, unsupported and not credible; Sea Sky functioned as agent for the Defendant and the Plaintiff was the correct payee for the freight and related charges; there was no evidence payments discharged the invoices and no valid triable defence was shown; therefore plaintiff entitled to summary judgment for the claimed sum plus interest and costs.
20 Jun 2005

ASCOBA CO LTD v. SAFCO INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATION AND OTHERS

Citation

ASCOBA CO LTD v. SAFCO INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT CORPORATION AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1463/2004

On the evidence the court found D2 contracted as principal with the plaintiff and is liable for breach of the contract of carriage for misdelivery; the Paramount Clause incorporating the Hague‑Visby Rules governed and a 12‑month limitation applied so the action was timely; damages of USD 74,700 awarded plus interest 2% from issue to judgment.
10 Feb 2003

FU XIAN DA (CHINA) CO. LTD v. CHI HUNG STAINLESS STEEL CO. LTD

Citation

FU XIAN DA (CHINA) CO. LTD v. CHI HUNG STAINLESS STEEL CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2675/1997

Documentary evidence including Letters of Appointment and the Plaintiff's written admission established a contract whereby the Plaintiff was liable for loss of the goods; Defendant proved its counterclaim for US$779,257.51 and the Plaintiff's admitted debt of US$517,693.33 was set off, resulting in a judgment for the Defendant for the net sum of US$261,564.18 with interest and costs.
23 Jan 2003

GUANG DONG WALLONG IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION v. WILLI CO. LTD.

Citation

GUANG DONG WALLONG IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION v. WILLI CO. LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7256/2001

On the balance of probabilities the Purchase Order was a contract between the Defendant and the Factory; contemporaneous documentary evidence (notably the Factory's fax directing deductions and payment method), the parties' longstanding direct dealing, lack of a written contract between Plaintiff and Defendant and the context of the letters established that the Plaintiff acted under the Factory's instructions and was not the contracting seller; therefore Plaintiff's claim for USD 40,147.42 failed and Defendant's position on set-off was supported.
3 Dec 2002

THYSSEN HUNNEBECK GmbH v. E MAN-SANFIELD JV CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

THYSSEN HUNNEBECK GmbH v. E MAN-SANFIELD JV CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT40/2002

The amendment to add the second plaintiff was allowed because the Rules permit joinder to ensure matters can be effectually adjudicated and it was premature to decide the agency/principal issue on this application; procedural rules allowing alternative pleadings govern and any strike out or election issues are for later determination.
16 Jan 2002

HO LAI CHUEN CADIA t/a RESOLUTION SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS v. XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

HO LAI CHUEN CADIA t/a RESOLUTION SOFTWARE CONSULTANTS v. XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6454/1997

The Court held the Order Confirmation of 31 December 1996 created a binding, sufficiently certain contract for supply, installation and maintenance; a prior draft MSA and parties' conduct supplied necessary certainty; RSC contracted as principal (not merely agent for Astea); the Defendant wrongfully repudiated the contract; plaintiff awarded damages for unpaid licence fees, lost implementation profit and one year maintenance, costs and interest, subject to plaintiff's undertaking regarding payment to Astea/Progress.