Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contract variation

Legal area

Court

14 Sept 2021

WU TAK HUNG t/a VINCENT ENGINEERING v. LEE HOI t/a HOI KONG ENGINEERING CO

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1148
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3572/2019

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant received the 3rd Quotation by end April 2015, acted upon it (including handing over a cheque and instructing procurement), thereby forming a contract at HK$4,686,000; the plaintiff performed in accordance with that quotation and was not in repudiatory breach, entitling the plaintiff to the outstanding sum of HK$1,286,000 plus interest; the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed and the defendant was ordered to pay costs.
24 Jun 2020

YEUNG SAN MING PETER v. MING KEE CONSTRUCTION (STEELWORK) ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKDC 390
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3609/2017

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the contemporaneous wage payment record and monthly man-days lists showing payments at HK$1,400 per man-day and 417 man-days under the 1st Agreement; the defendant’s defences (alleged common practice of provisional overpayment, WhatsApp negotiations, and an unrelated May 12 contract) failed to rebut that evidence; there was no proof of causation for water seepage, but the agreed safety penalty of HK$14,950 was allowed as set-off; judgment for plaintiff for HK$402,090 plus interest and costs order nisi.
23 Jun 2016

MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD

Citation

MO KWOK KEI v. RICHFIELD REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA30/2015

The Presiding Officer erred in law by failing to consider implied terms, other agreements or the legislative intent behind the 2007 amendments when excluding commissions from deduction under ss35(4), 41(6) and 41C(6); accordingly the appeals are allowed in part and the awards are set aside and remitted to the Labour Tribunal to determine whether commissions and team leader bonus constitute sums paid in respect of paid sick/holiday/annual leave days and thus may be deducted. The Presiding Officer's finding that the employer's Replacement Arrangement was a unilateral imposition was supported by…
20 Jul 2015

CHUM HING LIN v. PANG KI CHEUNG

Citation

CHUM HING LIN v. PANG KI CHEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3040/2012

On the balance of probabilities the defendant breached the 2nd Agreement by failing to supply goods made of the agreed material (coloured glass); there was no proven variation to a 3rd Agreement; the plaintiff validly deducted agreed refund installments and was entitled to repayment of deposits; defendant's counterclaim failed except for the admitted $18,315.
26 Apr 2013

周佩詩以博通發展公司的名義經營 v. INTERFID LTD

Citation

周佩詩以博通發展公司的名義經營 v. INTERFID LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ105/2012

The November and March Quotation & Confirmation documents were valid, binding contracts because they contained all essential terms and contemporaneous emails and conduct evidenced acceptance; alleged oral agreements to vary prices were not proven and conflicted with the parol evidence rule and the parties' conduct; the March Invoice reflected an oral agreement to share the cost of undelivered 50,000 green hang tags and is payable; accordingly judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$398,500 and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
17 Oct 2012

GALAXY CHINA DEEP VALUE FUND v. TANG JUN AND OTHERS

Citation

GALAXY CHINA DEEP VALUE FUND v. TANG JUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1630/2011

Defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue because the Security Agreement, properly construed with the correspondence, did not clearly and validly replace clause 4.1(2); any variation would have to comply with clause 11.2 requiring a signed document and that condition was not met; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiffs was warranted.
18 Jun 2012

CHARMING CASTLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. MEGO PROPERTIES LTD

Citation

CHARMING CASTLE INVESTMENTS LTD v. MEGO PROPERTIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2211/2011

Defendant discharged primary burden of establishing a prima facie case that the plaintiff may be unable to pay costs by evidence of plaintiff's non‑response to inquiries and surrounding circumstances; plaintiff failed to show a clearly strong case or produce financial evidence; balancing of interests warranted security for costs in the sum of HK$100,000 for costs up to first Case Management Summons, with proceedings stayed until payment and specified consequences for non-payment.
16 Nov 2010

CHONG CHENG LIN COURTNEY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

CHONG CHENG LIN COURTNEY v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV7/2010

The Court held the RTB provisions in the 1991 Handbook became part of the employment contract by lawful variation; adequate consideration existed in the employee's continued service/non‑exercise of the contractual right to quit; on proper construction RTB applies to employees dismissed by notice or payment in lieu but not to those summarily dismissed for cause; consequently the appeal was dismissed.
13 Mar 2008

MICHELLE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES (HK) LTD v. M & V ENGINEERING (E & M) LTD

Citation

MICHELLE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES (HK) LTD v. M & V ENGINEERING (E & M) LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV328/2007

The Court set aside the District Judge's grant of unconditional leave because the judge had rejected or doubted the alleged variation and the defendant's counterclaim rested on unsupported market‑price damages and suspicious documentation; accordingly conditional leave to defend was appropriate, requiring payment into court of $220,000 within 21 days or judgment for the plaintiff and dismissal of the counterclaim.
15 Jun 2006

HUEN FOOK NAM v. PENTALPHA ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

HUEN FOOK NAM v. PENTALPHA ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15860/1999

Court accepted that parties implemented a revised commission regime effective 1 April 1998 (benchmark and reduced rates) and that VB Distributors commission was US$0.50 per piece; plaintiff was entitled only to commission for sales before 1 April 1998 (calculated accordingly) and the defendant's withholding of salary constituted a repudiatory breach/ statutory breach under the Employment Ordinance allowing the plaintiff to terminate under s10A and recover one month's wages in lieu plus unpaid salary, annual leave pay and expenses; counterclaim and severance claim dismissed.