Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Control of exemption clauses ordinance (cap.71)

Legal area

Court

19 Jul 2011

CHENG KIT YEE v. MODERN BEAUTY SALON (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

CHENG KIT YEE v. MODERN BEAUTY SALON (HK) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI395/2010

The strike‑out application failed because it was not plain and obvious that the Statement of Claim was unsustainable: Clause 10 may be ineffective under Cap.71 as to personal injury and breach, disputed facts must be taken in the plaintiff's favour, and there was a tenable case against the defendants (including agency/negligence), therefore the claim requires trial.
7 May 2004

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV253/2003

By a majority the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal: the Lands Tribunal erred in striking out the security/implied-terms claims for lack of reasonable cause of action because express powers in the DMC did not preclude arguable implied duties to manage properly and with due care; the allegations of dishonesty and election issues should not be struck out at this stage because they were sufficiently particularised for trial in the informal Lands Tribunal context (majority), while one member would have upheld striking-out of particular dishonesty and election pleadings; provisional costs were aw…
3 Nov 2000

UY JUANITO AND ANOTHER v. THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

Citation

UY JUANITO AND ANOTHER v. THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15288/1999

The court refused to strike out para 4(3) because it was not plain and obvious that the contract was a pre‑Ordinance contract or that Cap.71 was inapplicable; disputed issues of construction and fact required trial. The appeal dismissing the challenge to Master Jones' order was therefore dismissed and the master’s order upheld.
29 Nov 1995

SUZIKA ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. EUROPEAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM (HAMACHER) LTD.

Citation

SUZIKA ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. EUROPEAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM (HAMACHER) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL37/1994

Leave to re-amend the Reply was granted because the proposed amendments were not plainly unarguable and required evidence and full argument to resolve; refusal is appropriate only where the amendment cannot be established on any view of the facts or would be legally irrelevant.
28 Mar 1995

ALWAYS WIN LTD. V. AUTOFIT LTD. and CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. (Third Party)

Citation

ALWAYS WIN LTD. V. AUTOFIT LTD. and CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. (Third Party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10735/1993

Defendant, as bailee, was negligent for failing to ensure adequate security and cannot rely on unproved or unreasonable exclusion clauses; the third party assumed possession duties by operating the in/out permit system and breached its security obligations under the DMC and regulations; both are liable and on contribution the third party bears two thirds of liability.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHENG KIT YEE v. MODERN BEAUTY SALON (HK) LTD AND OTHERS

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD

UY JUANITO AND ANOTHER v. THE CHASE MANHATTAN BANK

SUZIKA ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. v. EUROPEAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM (HAMACHER) LTD.

ALWAYS WIN LTD. V. AUTOFIT LTD. and CITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD. (Third Party)