Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Consequential loss

  • 26 Sept 2013

    ULTRA SOLUTION HOLDINGS LIMITED v. CHAN YUI HANG

    Citation
    ULTRA SOLUTION HOLDINGS LIMITED v. CHAN YUI HANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1101/2013

    The court varied the liquidator's decision and admitted the applicant's claims for direct losses (defective watch cases and sapphire glass), plating and delivery charges and part of the replacement parts claim on the balance of probabilities, rejected the large consequential loss claims for inadequate evidence, held the applicant liable to the company only in the admitted sum of HK$678,843.32 which is to be set off, concluded the applicant is a net creditor (over HK$100,000), refused ancillary disclosure orders as unnecessary and made a costs nisi order of 70% against the company assets.

  • 31 Jul 2007

    NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP SYSTEMS, INC v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ASIAN ATLAS"

    Citation
    NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIP SYSTEMS, INC v. THE OWNERS AND/OR DEMISE CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL "ASIAN ATLAS"
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAJ60/2007

    The court held that the indemnity claim for the plaintiff's exposure in the American proceedings is a legitimate consequential loss that falls within 'any claim for damage done by a ship' in s12A(2)(e), so in rem jurisdiction exists; material non-disclosure was not established and the security should remain unchanged.

  • 30 Dec 2002

    WONG WAI LAN v. TAM FUNG LAN SANDRA

    Citation
    WONG WAI LAN v. TAM FUNG LAN SANDRA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2704/1998

    The court held that Tam's claim for consequential loss arising from the aborted purchase of the second property does not fall within Ord 16 r 1(1)(b) but does fall within Ord 16 r 1(1)(c); where questions or issues connected with the original subject matter require determination as between plaintiff, defendant and a third party, the defendant may include consequential loss in third party proceedings, subject to the court's continuing discretion to regulate or set aside such proceedings.

  • 21 Jan 2000

    BRIGHTFORD LTD. v. CT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

    Citation
    BRIGHTFORD LTD. v. CT CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA17919/1998

    Defendant failed to prove, by contemporaneous records or reliable evidence, that crane breakdowns caused the alleged loss except on two days; absent an express contractual term making the owner liable for delays, the defendant cannot set off alleged losses against the rental; judgment for plaintiff for rental arrears with contractual interest.

  • 13 Jan 2000

    DR KOH KEE SUAN ANDREW v. DR IP KAY LO VINCENT

    Citation
    DR KOH KEE SUAN ANDREW v. DR IP KAY LO VINCENT
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA699/1992

    Applying the principles in Smith New Court and related authorities, the court held the plaintiff is entitled to full compensation for all direct and consequential losses caused by the deceit; special damages previously assessed plus additional general damages (including the $300,000 paid for shares deemed of no value) should be awarded to achieve full compensation. The court fixed a global award of HK$1,500,000, awarded interest with specified accrual dates, and ordered costs on an indemnity basis to ensure full compensation for plaintiff's loss and expenses.

  • 20 Jul 1999

    GUANGZHOU WEI JUN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO. v. PAK CHONG YEUNG JOHNNY (白滄洋) t/a WING LUNG CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION CO.

    Citation
    GUANGZHOU WEI JUN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO. v. PAK CHONG YEUNG JOHNNY (白滄洋) t/a WING LUNG CONTAINER TRANSPORTATION CO.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA14149/1997

    Court awarded damages based on market value at time of conversion limited to the value of the unreturned sets calculated at unit prices (US$636,205), allowed consequential loss in respect of anticipated administrative fee/profit (US$95,577.60) as reasonably foreseeable, awarded reimbursed payment to Deya for container loss (HK$775,802.10), declined to deduct the sale proceeds of recovered goods for lack of evidence of reasonable mitigation, and ordered interest from 6 July 1995 (half the judgment rate to judgment, then judgment rate) and costs to the plaintiff.

  • 27 Dec 1996

    GARLITZ INVESTMENT LTD v. TECH-TRANS LTD

    Citation
    GARLITZ INVESTMENT LTD v. TECH-TRANS LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA9677/1993

    Where defendant repudiated and failed to deliver the contracted computer system and was absent at assessment, plaintiff was entitled to recover the deposit and assessed damages comprising wasted preparatory expenses, the additional cost of procuring a comparable replacement system, installation and training costs, temporary staffing and loss of profits for delayed openings; interest awarded from 1 April 1994 at 1% above HSBC best lending rate until judgment rate thereafter; costs to plaintiff.

  • 2 Aug 1995

    PLASSEN LIMITED v. TAI KA HUNG HUAT LIMITED

    Citation
    PLASSEN LIMITED v. TAI KA HUNG HUAT LIMITED
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA13002/1994

    Clause 7.4 is a valid liquidated damages clause covering the defendant's failure to take up the contracted quantity, and it limits the defendant's liability to US$10 per unit for the 20,000 motorcycles (US$200,000); consequential losses arising from the delay in opening the L/C for the first instalment were proved and awarded in New Taiwan Dollars (NT$4,768,784); mitigation was inadequate to prove full loss of profit on the remaining 18,880 units and such larger loss was not awarded because clause 7.4 governs quantum.

  • 15 Jun 1981

    NG TAI KEE TRADING CO LTD v. WAI HING & CO (A FIRM)

    Citation
    NG TAI KEE TRADING CO LTD v. WAI HING & CO (A FIRM)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCL7/1980

    The court rejected the claimant's claim for consequential profits as too remote and speculative and not in the parties' contemplation or established by evidence; instead damages were measured at the date of breach (20 November 1978) by reference to the market substitute (used ship plates adjusted 5%), producing a net award of US$169,495.01 (HK$813,576.04) with interest and costs.

  • 11 Jun 1981

    CHANG LIANG HOU t/a WAI HING AND CO v. ITALSIDER S.P.A.

    Citation
    CHANG LIANG HOU t/a WAI HING AND CO v. ITALSIDER S.P.A.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCL25/1981

    Defendant liable for non-delivery of both disputed lots because it had indicated inability/unwillingness to perform and could not rely on the plaintiff's non-opening of an L/C as a condition precedent; consequential losses of the plaintiff and his sub-purchaser are not recoverable as they were not within the defendant's contemplation; damages are assessed by reference to market value at the last contractual shipment date (as extended) less contract price, subject to plaintiff's duty to mitigate.