Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Completion date

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2017

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN

Citation

SIT SAU MING v. LEUNG MAY CHUN ALISON ALIANCE formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4453/2008

On the balance of probabilities the court found there was a mutual agreement to postpone completion to 9 January 2008, the plaintiff paid the balance and was ready to complete, the defendant refused to execute the assignment on 9 January 2008 and therefore breached the sale and purchase agreement; specific performance was the appropriate remedy and costs follow the event.
12 Sept 2017

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1609/2011

The court held that the completion date was validly varied to 22 June 2011 by the 7 May memorandum read together with solicitors' correspondence; the plaintiffs' correspondence raised timely and substantive requisitions or engaged the defendants' express warranty as to third party rights (clause 24); the defendants failed to show absence of any valid third party claim and therefore failed to show good title; accordingly the defendants repudiated the agreement and plaintiffs were entitled to return of the $400,000 deposit and wasted conveyancing costs.
5 Mar 2012

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1609/2011

Summary judgment was refused because core issues — whether the completion date was contractually varied, whether the title was disputed due to third-party proceedings, whether the defendants validly annulled the sale under clause 16(2), and whether the plaintiffs committed a repudiatory breach — involve contested facts and mixed questions of law and fact that must be tried.
2 Nov 2010

TECHNICOM INTERIORS DESIGN ENGINEERING LTD v. TSE YUET YI AND ANOTHER

Citation

TECHNICOM INTERIORS DESIGN ENGINEERING LTD v. TSE YUET YI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5965/2008

Expert Architect report was inadmissible because it lacked proper expert opinion and methodology; absent admissible expert evidence defendants failed to prove alleged defects or remedial costs except for specific concessions; the waiver of B-cabinets was conditional on payment so plaintiff may recover those charges; completion date was determined by the written contractual clause (plans approved in October 2007) making completion in January 2008; plaintiff entitled to net judgment of HKD 36,690 plus interest and to recover costs with indemnity taxation for costs occasioned by the defendants'…
13 May 2010

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

WING HONG CONSTRUCTION LTD v. TIN WO ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT13/2010

The court refused leave to appeal because, applying the 'obviously wrong' standard, the arbitrator was entitled to infer a completion date from the works programme despite lack of formal notification and was entitled to construe the ambiguous phrase 'rate of works' in SSC 24 so as not to bar recovery of prolongation costs; those conclusions were not obviously wrong.
3 Aug 2009

LI KIN WO DANIEL AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHUN PING JOEY

Citation

LI KIN WO DANIEL AND ANOTHER v. WONG CHUN PING JOEY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5263/2008

On the documents there was no binding agreement to postpone completion nor an accepted undertaking to provide the supplemental DMC after completion; oral variation was ineffective for a land sale and the Defendant failed to prove title by the completion date, therefore summary judgment for the Plaintiffs was appropriate.
12 Feb 2009

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. AIG ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND LP AND OTHERS

Citation

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. AIG ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND LP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/2008

The Court of Appeal held clause 6(a) of the Escrow Agreement was satisfied (Completion Date had not occurred within the stipulated time) and that clause 6(b)(i) was also satisfied because SHC was contractually obliged under the JVA to procure land use certificates (an implied and necessary term) and its failure to do so amounted to a continuing breach; accordingly the defendants were entitled to pro rata distribution under clause 6 and the appeal was allowed.
26 Apr 2007

CHINA COMPLANT DEVELOPMENT (HK) LTD v. NG SHING FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA COMPLANT DEVELOPMENT (HK) LTD v. NG SHING FAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA927/2004

The court held that "completion date" in the Deed of Guarantee means the contractual completion date of the respective contracts (i.e. completion of the contract works within the contract period as specified and as varied by any authorised extension), and therefore the guarantors' obligation to pay any shortfall arose within six months of those contractual completion dates irrespective of final account settlement; accordingly 2nd and 3rd defendants were liable for the quantified shortfall.
1 Mar 2004

WU YIN FAI v. NG KAM TONG

Citation

WU YIN FAI v. NG KAM TONG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6305/2002

The court found the contract was a design-and-build agreement with an agreed completion date before Chinese New Year; the defendant's works were defective and not practically complete, breaching implied warranties of fitness and regulatory compliance; the plaintiff was reasonable to refuse further reliance on the defendant for rectification; the defendant's counterclaim failed though he could recover on quantum meruit, and the plaintiff was awarded damages for remedial costs and related losses totalling $322,143 plus interest and costs.
4 Dec 2002

GOARM ENGINEERING LTD. v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION

Citation

GOARM ENGINEERING LTD. v. SHIMIZU CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT21/1999

The court found there was no agreement that Goarm would be bound by Amen's subcontract, no fixed lump sum of HK$7,000,000 was agreed, and no completion date of 30 June 1997 was agreed; accordingly Goarm was entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis; the court adopted Mr Barrett's cost assessment reduced by 5% and a 12.5% profit margin to calculate the plaintiff's entitlement, allowed contra charges on a split-the-difference basis, rejected liquidated damages and prolongation claims for lack of proof, and entered judgment for the plaintiff and limited judgment on the counterclaim.