Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of undertakings

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2026

YAO GUOLIANG AND ANOTHER v. FOREVER WINNER INTERNTIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1146
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2442/2024

On an objective construction of the Undertaking and its context, "assets" did not include mere physical share certificates; the mere movement of those certificates from the UBS account without more did not constitute dealing with Forever Winner's assets and therefore did not breach the Undertaking or render Wang's affirmation false; accordingly the ex parte Order 52 leave was set aside and the committal (contempt) proceedings dismissed.
30 Aug 2021

THE NATIONAL TRUST LTD v. TAHOE INVESTMENT GROUP CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2617
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2301/2020

Security for costs ordered: plaintiff unable to demonstrate the high degree of probability of success required to resist security for costs because (a) the Undertakings lack an express choice of Mainland court agreement likely required for enforcement under the MJREO and (b) the Undertakings prima facie do not operate as guarantees creating primary liability but rather require transfer of shareholdings, therefore plaintiff must provide security of HK$3,000,000 payable into court within 21 days; costs of the summons awarded to defendants with certificate for senior counsel; limited leave grant…
6 Feb 2009

CHAN SIU HAN v. TONG YUK LAN

Citation

CHAN SIU HAN v. TONG YUK LAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3432/2008

The judge found there were real disputes of fact and competing interpretations concerning the Law Society circular undertaking and the effect of the 15 July 2008 letter, and that the defendant therefore had an arguable case on fact and law; accordingly the plaintiff did not demonstrate a realistic prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
16 Mar 2004

ALA 2000 S.P.A v. ADVANCED APPLIANCE LTD

Citation

ALA 2000 S.P.A v. ADVANCED APPLIANCE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9282/2000

The court refused to increase or decrease the fortification: the defendants either knew or ought to have known the figures relied upon at the time of the consent order; the undertaking was to be construed as covering the defendants' prior conduct and could not be relied on to claim those losses; delay did not fall solely on the plaintiff and there was no evidence the plaintiff's ability to meet damages had worsened, therefore no good reason existed to disturb the consent order.
14 Feb 2000

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K.L. MAN & CO. (a firm)

Citation

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K.L. MAN & CO. (a firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3070/1998

The undertaking, being a clear unqualified solicitors' undertaking intended to facilitate the commercial property transaction, obligated the defendant to deliver an assignment executed by the registered owner transferring title free from encumbrances; the defendant breached that undertaking, has no arguable defence on the undisputed facts, and summary judgment is appropriate for the unpaid balance with damages for costs to be assessed.
21 May 1986

SUSAN ELIZABETH HORTON v. GERARD FRANCIS HORTON

Citation

SUSAN ELIZABETH HORTON v. GERARD FRANCIS HORTON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV74/1985

The Court concluded that the Deputy Judge had placed undue weight on speculative outcomes from the 29 June 1984 offer and thereby erred in awarding the Respondent costs after that date; accordingly the costs order was varied so that each party bears their own costs from 29 June 1984 while preserving the earlier award to the Petitioner up to that date.
3 Dec 1984

SUSAN ELIZABETH HORTON v. GERARD FRANCIS HORTON

Citation

SUSAN ELIZABETH HORTON v. GERARD FRANCIS HORTON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC19/1983

Court had jurisdiction under Rule 77(5) to entertain the summons but refused leave to cross‑examine because the proposed questioning concerned events and intentions subsequent to the order that were irrelevant to construing the undertaking and would cause unnecessary delay and expense; the construction issue must be decided without the proposed cross‑examination.

Hong Kong Case Law

YAO GUOLIANG AND ANOTHER v. FOREVER WINNER INTERNTIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

THE NATIONAL TRUST LTD v. TAHOE INVESTMENT GROUP CO., LTD AND OTHERS

CHAN SIU HAN v. TONG YUK LAN

ALA 2000 S.P.A v. ADVANCED APPLIANCE LTD

YING HO CO. LTD. v. MAN KWOK LEUNG t/a DAVID K.L. MAN & CO. (a firm)

SUSAN ELIZABETH HORTON v. GERARD FRANCIS HORTON

SUSAN ELIZABETH HORTON v. GERARD FRANCIS HORTON