Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Consultancy agreement

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2020

THRESHOLD CONSULTANTS LTD v. BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 415
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT58/2017

Boost failed to discharge the burden of proof on breach and causation: the project programmes were estimates not contractual deadlines; Threshold provided tender/DD drawings in time and responded to numerous client queries; no expert evidence established professional breach; many delays and abortive costs were attributable to contractor or Boost decisions; no express personal undertaking by Ms Au — therefore counterclaim dismissed and Threshold entitled to fees claimed.
16 Sept 2010

TANG WAI KUEN RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. ASIA LANDSCAPING LTD

Citation

TANG WAI KUEN RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. ASIA LANDSCAPING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT11/2008

On the evidence the court found both parties objectively contemplated DARG's consultancy related to Zones A–C at the time of contracting; the inclusion of Zones D and E by Supplemental Agreements therefore amounted to variations within the meaning of 'variation amount' in the Consultancy Agreement and DARG was entitled to 5% of the increased contract sum; the plaintiff was awarded MOP 796,029 with interest as ordered.
2 Mar 2010

CHOW YAN WEI v. RISESHIP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

CHOW YAN WEI v. RISESHIP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1738/2008

The court accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and the independent witness (Sihoe) as credible and found the Defendant's account inherently incredible where it contradicted the Plaintiff. Contemporaneous documents (receipts and IRD notifications) describing the sums as "consultancy fee" were treated as admissions. The payments of HK$150,000 were held to have been made pursuant to the Consultancy Agreement, the Defendant's counterclaim was dismissed, and judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$475,000 with interest at judgment rate from 13 March 2008 until satisfaction.
4 May 2006

SEKAMURA LTD v. GOLIK CONCRETE LTD

Citation

SEKAMURA LTD v. GOLIK CONCRETE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ441/2004

Defendant failed to prove the pleaded grounds for withholding payment: (a) the alleged unavailability of Plaintiff was not established and was undermined by evidence of contact and invoices using Plaintiff's contact details; (b) any alleged refusal by KK-MAK did not constitute a breach by the Plaintiff or, in any event, the Defendant did not treat it as a termination of the contract; (c) services under the agreement were payable only upon Defendant's request which Defendant did not prove it made; Plaintiff proved readiness and willingness to perform; accordingly judgment entered for Plaintiff…
13 Dec 2002

SMART KEEN INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LINK-TEC INDUSTRIAL LTD.

Citation

SMART KEEN INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LINK-TEC INDUSTRIAL LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5102/2002

The defendant's account of an oral agreement discharging the Consultancy Agreement, while possibly improbable at trial, was not inherently unbelievable when viewed against the informal background and lack of contemporaneous contradictory documents; therefore the defendant established a triable issue and summary judgment could not be granted.
6 Sept 2001

PRO PLAN ASIA LTD. v. LEE KUM KEE PROPERTIES LTD.

Citation

PRO PLAN ASIA LTD. v. LEE KUM KEE PROPERTIES LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3650/2001

On the balance of evidence there was a tacit agreement that the Defendant would pay the success fee in Clause 14; the plain reading of Clause 14(iv) makes the success fee payable upon written confirmation from the Town Planning Board that total GFA exceeded plot ratio 0.4; the written confirmation dated 12/11/98 triggered the payment obligation, entitling the Plaintiff to HK$250,000 plus interest.
9 Feb 1988

CAMERON MICROSYSTEMS LTD. v. BLOOMVILLE TRADING LTD.

Citation

CAMERON MICROSYSTEMS LTD. v. BLOOMVILLE TRADING LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ24/1987

The court found the consultant had failed to perform the contractual obligation to link the Polos to the Compaq, that this failure discharged Bloomville from paying the retainer fees for the period in question, and that there was no proven professional negligence or actionable misrepresentation by the consultant; consequently both the claim for fees and the counterclaim failed and were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

THRESHOLD CONSULTANTS LTD v. BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD

TANG WAI KUEN RAYMOND AND ANOTHER v. ASIA LANDSCAPING LTD

CHOW YAN WEI v. RISESHIP CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

SEKAMURA LTD v. GOLIK CONCRETE LTD

SMART KEEN INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. LINK-TEC INDUSTRIAL LTD.

PRO PLAN ASIA LTD. v. LEE KUM KEE PROPERTIES LTD.

CAMERON MICROSYSTEMS LTD. v. BLOOMVILLE TRADING LTD.