Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consequential damages

Legal area

Court

6 Jun 2018

VOLLY BEST INVESTMENT LTD v. JOINLAND HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1191
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1438/2013

Resale dates in March 2010 represent the proper valuation dates because the resale prices reflected the market value and the vendor did not fail to mitigate; accordingly damages are assessed by reference to the resale prices, Volly Best is entitled to consequential losses for management fees and government rent/rates (Items b and c) but not to agency commission and conveyancing costs (Items d and e) absent proof they were additional, interest at prime plus 1% from date of resale to judgment is awarded, and plaintiff is entitled to three quarters of costs.
14 Apr 2015

WEST COAST INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD t/a DANDELION FINE ARTS v. CHELSEA ART CO LTD

Citation

WEST COAST INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD t/a DANDELION FINE ARTS v. CHELSEA ART CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1636/2010

Registrar exercised discretion to allow the amendments because the proposed detinue claim (limited to the 2nd painting) was not plainly bound to fail on its face, the plaintiff had pleaded a demand in November 2010 and the defendant admitted non-return, which brings the detinue claim within limitation; consequential loss claims were arguable and better resolved at trial; delay was not inordinate and defendant had contributed to overall procedural delay, so justice required allowing the amendment and letting the issues be tried.
22 Aug 2002

REGENT ROSS LTD. t/a PO WAI TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TAM CHI YIU t/a CHI HING CO.

Citation

REGENT ROSS LTD. t/a PO WAI TRANSPORTATION CO. v. TAM CHI YIU t/a CHI HING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6042/2000

The judge preferred the plaintiff's evidence over the defendant's, found no enforceable term making time of the essence and no reliable proof of causation or quantum for the counterclaim, concluded the defendant failed to mitigate and that the counterclaim was unsupported; judgment was entered for the plaintiff for the claimed carriage sum, interest and costs, and the counterclaim dismissed.
30 Jun 2000

HUA YANG PRINTING HOLDINGS CO. LTD. v. PURE HEALTH PUBLISHING CO.

Citation

HUA YANG PRINTING HOLDINGS CO. LTD. v. PURE HEALTH PUBLISHING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5410/1998

On the evidence the delivery dates were estimates in a trade where revisions and compromises were routine; PHPC's correspondence and acceptance of delivered goods waived any right to treat time as of the essence; the US$75,000 credit note was accepted as a full and final settlement of delay-related claims up to 25 September 1997; films were returned within a reasonable time and PHPC failed to prove causation or quantum of claimed losses; accordingly judgment entered for Hua Yang and PHPC's counterclaim dismissed.
30 Oct 1998

HERMANN LOHMANN v. D-INTERTRADE LTD.

Citation

HERMANN LOHMANN v. D-INTERTRADE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13219/1995

Defendant was liable for breach: it had accepted the Plaintiff's Letters of Credit and payments (including quota payments) by conduct or had waived original requirements, could not rely on late technical objections, and the Plaintiff proved its quantum; Defendant's counterclaim failed and is dismissed.
23 Jul 1997

FILLTECH ENTERPRISES LTD. v. SUN RAY TRADING CO.

Citation

FILLTECH ENTERPRISES LTD. v. SUN RAY TRADING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5847/1996

Where the sub-sale was within the contemplation of the parties, consequential losses including loss of profit and reasonable compensation paid to a sub-buyer are recoverable under the second limb of Hadley v. Baxendale; accordingly the court awarded the deposit, lost profits, compensation to sub-buyer, fabric cost and processing losses as assessed.
6 Jul 1989

HANG TUNG TRADING CO v. CHINA BUILD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HANG TUNG TRADING CO v. CHINA BUILD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8415/1987

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the bales in the godown were the goods supplied under the contract and therefore failed on liability; the court found the defendant had conditioned acceptance of return within two weeks; the written contract between defendant and third party superseded any prior oral understanding and the third party must be treated as having assumed principal responsibilities; clause 9 was incoherent and unenforceable, clause 11 validly excluded consequential damages; accordingly plaintiff's claim and defendant's third party claim were dismissed.
15 Jan 1975

FAITHFUL TRADING CO LTD v. NOBLE CROWN RESTAURANT LTD

Citation

FAITHFUL TRADING CO LTD v. NOBLE CROWN RESTAURANT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV37/1974

Because the appellants inspected the premises and the buyers made known the particular purpose and relied on the appellants' skill, an implied condition of fitness for purpose arose under s.16(a) of the Sale of Goods Ordinance; the heater was unsuited to the existing piping and the sellers were liable for consequential losses, subject to a modest reduction of the damages awarded.