Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of contractual rights

Legal area

Court

10 Oct 2017

VE GLOBAL UK LTD v. CHARLES ALLARD JR AND ANOTHER

Citation

VE GLOBAL UK LTD v. CHARLES ALLARD JR AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1678/2017

Global, as the assignee of the Licence with notice served, has locus to seek interim relief in respect of Intelita's alleged breaches; on the evidence there is a serious issue to be tried and the balance of convenience favors continuing the injunctions to preserve confidential information and learned data held in 3rd party DSP/accounts pending arbitration; defendants must provide access to the accounts/data to Global (subject to payment of fees) and are restrained from further using or exploiting that confidential information; CA is not entitled to unfettered individual access to company bank…
16 Jan 2014

GIULIA RENTON also known as GIULIA GRILLO v. DIM(HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GIULIA RENTON also known as GIULIA GRILLO v. DIM(HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1565/2012

The notice complied with paragraph 3 and was effective; the 2010 agreement placed on the defendants an unconditional obligation to provide the documentation and pay the deposit within 30 days of the notice; the defendants failed to perform and produced no credible evidence of any bona fide defence or triable issue; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was properly entered for the plaintiff and the appeal is dismissed; the prevention principle prevents the defendants from relying on consequences of their own breach.
19 Nov 2013

UES INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MARITIMA MARUBA SA

Citation

UES INTERNATIONAL (HK) LTD v. MARITIMA MARUBA SA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA632/2011

The court permitted the plaintiff to file the Amended Reply and supplemental witness statement despite lateness because justice required the real issues be tried and no real prejudice was shown, but imposed indemnity costs against the plaintiff and solicitor-level sanctions for procedural breaches; separately, the ex parte Mareva injunction was discharged because the applicant failed to make full and frank disclosure of material assignments to the ex parte judge and re-granting was refused absent a satisfactory innocent explanation.
26 Oct 2012

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1978/2011

Although there was a material non-disclosure in the ex parte applications (failure to highlight the assignment affecting P1's capacity), the non-disclosure was not deliberate, the plaintiffs established a serious issue to be tried (including existence of an oral double signatory arrangement and 'no licence no payment' contention), there was overwhelming evidence of dissipation of the majority of the US$4.7m, and on balance justice required continuation of the Mareva injunctions; accordingly the defendants' discharge application was dismissed and the injunctions continued.
23 Dec 2005

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAN YEUK WAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3156/2002

The application for summary judgment was refused because it was arguable that UFC had not acquired title to the Guarantees under the 2nd SPA and the Assignment; where title to sue is in dispute on an arguable construction, leave to defend must be granted and the matter should proceed to trial.
12 Sept 2005

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

Citation

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

District Court
Case number

DCCJ16078/2000

The court revoked Master J. Ko's order because the interrogatories were not necessary for the fair disposal of the cause nor for saving costs given (a) the plaintiff had withdrawn the Assignment Argument, (b) Universal Gold had been struck off and could not realistically have assigned or contracted absent expert evidence on Cayman law, and (c) there was sufficient existing material (disclosed assignment letter, invoices, plaintiff's affirmative answer to existence of acceptance) to proceed; accordingly the plaintiff showed sufficient cause under Order 26 r.8. The plaintiff's answers filed on…
3 Sept 2004

LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LINFIELD LTD v. TAOHO DESIGN ARCHITECTS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT68/2001

Court found MML breached express contractual warranty and duty in selecting and installing Poiseul B5 and is liable for remedial costs and foreseeable loss of rental; GWA as RSE did not breach duties because it reasonably relied on MML's specialised data, acted within statutory supervisory scope, was not required to perform exhaustive pre‑construction testing, and causation of wider economic loss was not attributable to GWA; assignment to Linfield valid; contribution claims dismissed.
17 Sept 2003

YOOK TONG ELECTRIC CO LTD v. PIRELLI CAVI E SISTEMI SPA

Citation

YOOK TONG ELECTRIC CO LTD v. PIRELLI CAVI E SISTEMI SPA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7882/2000

Clause 11 did not survive termination of the Agency Agreement; the contract provided for a clean break on termination with only Clause 12 (non-disclosure) surviving; therefore the Official Receiver validly assigned Goodway's causes of action to the plaintiff and the defendant's summons failed.
17 Dec 2001

CHOI SZE FAI v. PRETTY FULL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CHOI SZE FAI v. PRETTY FULL DEVELOPMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10132/1998

Master Wong acted within jurisdiction in ordering further security for costs of HK$500,000 and in providing for the sanction of staying the appeal if security was not furnished; the plaintiff's case did not demonstrate a high probability of success to preclude security and the appeal against Master Wong's order is therefore dismissed with costs.
4 Sept 2000

HOI FAT CONSTRUCTION MECHANIC CO. LTD. v. LING CHI FAI

Citation

HOI FAT CONSTRUCTION MECHANIC CO. LTD. v. LING CHI FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5066/1999

The plaintiff, having been validly assigned Dah Sing Finance's rights and having acted reasonably to mitigate loss, is entitled to recover the shortfall calculated as sums paid/contracted under the reassignment and repairs less the resale proceeds (HK$336,399.20), together with costs on an indemnity basis and interest at judgment rate.