Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Authority/agency

  • 6 Jun 2025

    PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION LTD v. SUNNIC ENGINEERING LTD

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 2394
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA428/2024

    The Court exercised its discretion to direct that HCCT 42/2025 be heard by the same judge as HCA 428/2024 and HCA 491/2024, to be heard after the witnesses and evidence in HCA 428/2024 and HCA 491/2024 have been heard or after the issues in those actions (including third party proceedings) have been disposed of, with evidence to be deemed mutually admissible, because the actions contain overlapping factual and expert issues (notably delay, progress of works and the state of final accounts) and hearing them by the same judge will avoid inconsistent findings and may save time and costs provided…

  • 9 Aug 2024

    LAM CHOI YUK v. LAM HING WAN

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1279
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4265/2021

    The 28 June 2021 settlement agreement is valid and enforceable: evidence (audio transcript, witness evidence and contemporaneous documents) established that the Defendant was not coerced and acted voluntarily; Catherine Chan had authority to bind the Plaintiff; the revised consideration and allocation of liabilities were commercially explicable; the Defendant breached the settlement by refusing to pay HK$1,675,737 and is liable to the Plaintiff for that sum with contractual interest; the Defendant's counterclaims based on entitlement to the HK$660,000 escrow and HIFU installments fail because…

  • 3 Oct 2017

    YAO GUOLIANG v. LIU YANG

    Citation
    YAO GUOLIANG v. LIU YANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2269/2015

    The Written Undertaking was enforceable: the plaintiff had a bona fide claim which he bona fide intended to pursue and forbearance to enforce that claim constituted valid consideration for the Written Undertaking; the defendant's alleged misrepresentation defence failed as it concerned a future promise by a third party and there was no evidence of authority or fraud; there were no triable issues sufficient to defeat an O.14 summary judgment and the master’s summary judgment was correctly affirmed.

  • 30 Jan 2014

    DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV72/2013

    The Court held that Dragonrider's put option notice was valid and severable such that it operated in respect of Dragonrider's own shares and the shares of Addgood and Angel Wise; prior notices by SIG and Stark Moly only took effect as to those companies' respective blocks and did not invalidate the remainder of Dragonrider's notice; Dragonrider had authority (or the defendant failed to raise triable issues as to lack of authority) to act for the other investors where evidence existed; Lam's failure to complete constituted an event of default enabling enforcement of the share charge and specif…

  • 30 Jan 2014

    DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    DRAGONRIDER OPPORTUNITY FUND LP v. LAM FUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV71/2013

    The put option notice served by Dragonrider was valid and severable as to the distinct blocks of shares identified in the notice; Dragonrider could validly require repurchase of its own shares and those of Addgood and Angel Wise; earlier put notices by SIG and Stark Moly were effective only as to those companies' shares and precluded Dragonrider exercising in respect of those same shares; sufficient authority existed for Dragonrider to act for other investors; an event of default occurred entitling transfer under the share charge; deputy judge's orders for specific performance and transfer we…

  • 5 Jun 2009

    SKYLARK LTD AND ANOTHER v. KUNG SUI WING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    SKYLARK LTD AND ANOTHER v. KUNG SUI WING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2607/2006

    The 1st Defendant failed to prove any lawful authority from the owner to manage Lot 695 or to block the Suit Road; the Plaintiffs established a right of way by presumed grant supported by maps, aerial photographs and contractor evidence; the defendant's changed and unsupported case was inherently incredible and abusive, warranting summary judgment for the Plaintiffs, striking out of the counterclaim, an injunction, and indemnity costs.

  • 12 Dec 2006

    CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHINA EVERBRIGHT FINANCE LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHAN YUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA18300/1999

    It was reasonable for plaintiffs to sue both defendants in the alternative based on pre-action correspondence and factual context; therefore an order shifting the 2nd defendant's costs was permissible. Considering the balance of hardship and the 2nd defendant's innocence, the court exercised its discretion to make a Bullock order so the 2nd defendant would actually receive reimbursement while permitting the plaintiffs to recoup from the 1st defendant.

  • 11 Nov 2005

    CLINTON ENGINEERING LTD v. TRIDANT ENGINEERING CO LTD

    Citation
    CLINTON ENGINEERING LTD v. TRIDANT ENGINEERING CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCT98/1999

    The LOA was authentic and conferred authority on Mansion China to act as Clinton's agent; Clinton was therefore an undisclosed principal and entitled to sue on the Sub-Contract (LOI). Certain LC payments acknowledged in Ready System's 3 April 1995 letter could be deducted, producing a net shortfall of HKD 30,760,162.25 as at November 1995, but that shortfall did not amount to a repudiatory breach and Clinton did not evince an intention not to be bound by the Sub-Contract.

  • 14 Nov 2003

    EVER-LONG SECURITIES CO LTD v. WONG SIO PO

    Citation
    EVER-LONG SECURITIES CO LTD v. WONG SIO PO
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV99/2003

    The Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie contract and sufficient evidence that transactions were authorised via the intermediary (Mr Pang) and that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge (receiving daily statements). Alleged regulatory breaches and non‑compliance with the SFC Code or Part XA did not render the contract illegal because Part XA did not apply to the activities in issue by virtue of Schedule 4; hearsay statements by the defendant were admissible and not prejudicial; allegations of fraud were unpleaded and unsupported. Therefore there was no meri…

  • 21 Feb 2000

    ROE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD

    Citation
    ROE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV14/1999

    The consent order of 28 May 1997, viewed objectively, resolved the outstanding disputes between the parties and operated to preclude Prince Good and Unionix from pursuing damages against Roe for delay; the technical invalidity of Roe's interpleader originating summons did not justify the Court of Appeal's orders because the irregularity was waived or cured by the parties' consent and by Order 2 r.1(1); accordingly Yam J's orders dismissing the applications to lift the stay and for costs should be restored and the Court of Appeal's judgment quashed.