Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Certainty of terms

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2025

KEEN LLOYD HOLDINGS LTD v. CHAN KA MAN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5929
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2067/2020

Court found on the balance of probabilities that an oral settlement was reached at the September 2019 meeting: defendant agreed to sell the property and pay her share of the proceeds to plaintiff in full and final settlement of plaintiff’s claims against defendant and her daughter; plaintiff’s forbearance to sue was good consideration because plaintiff bona fide believed it had a reasonable claim with a fair chance of success and a new claim would not inevitably be struck out as an abuse; defendant’s contrary version was rejected and adverse inferences were drawn for failure to call material…
5 Aug 2024

CHINACHEM AGENCIES LTD v. GONG ZHONGXIN

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2025/2019

The Siblings failed to establish estoppel by convention: there was no communicated or mutually manifested common assumption adopted by the Plaintiff; the alleged assurances were vague and uncertain; there was no demonstrable detrimental reliance; accordingly the Plaintiff validly terminated revocable licences and is entitled to possession and mesne profits; the Counterclaim is dismissed and costs awarded to the Plaintiff.
30 Apr 2024

SUPREME CHINA SECURITIES LTD v. NG WING YIP AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA70/2022

The court held that the 1st defendant occupied two distinct roles under two separate agreements and, as account executive under the Letter of Appointment, was an independent contractor as a matter of commercial reality; clauses 3(a) and 4 of the Letter of Appointment constituted enforceable guarantee and indemnity obligations which did not give rise to any triable defence on the available material; the jurisdictional challenge to the CFI failed; summary judgment was therefore appropriate and judgment was entered against the 1st defendant for HK$3,423,964.77 with specified interest and costs (…
12 Dec 2022

BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3674
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1861/2017

The LOI was a binding contract despite some missing dates because the parties intended to be bound and the LOI furnished a sufficiently workable framework; Clause 10b is confined to breaches under clause 10 (in particular the prohibition in clause 10a against negotiating with third parties) rather than applying to all breaches of the LOI; the court found that by the 31 May 2017 conversation the parties had reached a consensus that compensation would be measured under Clause 10b, but the plaintiff failed to plead or particularise a damages case under Clause 10b at trial and therefore is limite…
30 Sept 2022

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. A TECH M & E ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT65/2019

On the evidence the court found two binding lump‑sum sub‑contracts were formed based on the amended quotations and parties' conduct; absence of unit rates/breakdown did not defeat contractual certainty in the circumstances; BeSpark repudiated the contracts by termination and A‑Tech was entitled to the value of work done at contract prices (HKD 1,472,522.53 net) plus damages for loss of profit calculated at 7.5% of the remaining contract value (HKD 1,523,402.83), totaling HKD 2,995,925.36, with interest and costs.
31 Jul 2020

HO LAI KING v. KWOK FUNG YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 657
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/2019

The Court of Appeal held the Judge erred in concluding there was no intention to create legal relations. Considering the subject matter (a substantial capital asset), the context of the telephone agreement, the defendants' substantial performance and the real risk that the son would unjustly benefit, the court found the parties intended the Oral Agreement to be legally binding. The lack of written formalities and some vagueness did not defeat enforceability. Consequently the defendants were entitled to half of the RMB3,000,000 compensation (RMB1,500,000).
29 Mar 2019

PANG LIN, Administrator of the Estate of KO CHUN WAY WAYNE, deceased v. GOLDEN GATE INTERNATIONAL KINDERGARTEN AND NURSERY LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA285/2017

Plaintiff, as administratrix, had capacity to sue; contemporaneous documents established loans totalling HK$1,876,100; defendant failed to prove repayment or the alleged forbearance agreement and was absent at trial so evidence was disregarded; alternatively, even if the September Memorandum reflected an agreement it was unenforceable because it was so illogical in context that it could not have been intended to bind the parties; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$1,876,100 with interest and costs.
7 Nov 2018

YAN HOW YEE v. YU KIN SANG PAUL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2511
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3050/2015

The court must decide enforceability by objective assessment of the parties' conduct and the document: signatures by the parties and initialling of amendments, combined with express terms referring to payment 'in full and final settlement of these proceedings', can demonstrate a finalised, immediately enforceable settlement unless essential terms are missing or ambiguity shows no intention to be bound.
4 Jun 2018

TSANG, HIN MING JOHNNY v. TSANG, HIN KEI JOSEPH AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1186
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA994/2015

The judge accepted the defendant's and witness Law's credible evidence and rejected the plaintiff's account; on the facts the subject agreement was a valid enforceable contract (not void for uncertainty) in the familial construction context, allocated responsibility for premium and set procedures; consequently the plaintiff's claim for recovery of the ground floor was dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim for transfer succeeded in the terms ordered.
31 Oct 2016

CHAN MEI YI JESSICA v. TSOI KING KEUNG JOHNNY

Citation

CHAN MEI YI JESSICA v. TSOI KING KEUNG JOHNNY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1643/2014

On the balance of probabilities the court found there was no binding loan agreement because the MSN exchanges did not establish agreement on essential terms (notably the loan amount) and were conducted in a jocular manner, whereas contemporaneous messages and transaction summaries supported the defendant's account that the money was entrusted for investment; accordingly the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.