Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim and set-off

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2022

WHARF REALTY LTD v. ABEBI LIMITED t/a "ARMANI JUNIOR"

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2020

On the assumed facts the events were unprecedented and caused severe commercial loss but did not change the nature of the parties' contractual obligations or physically render the premises unfit; the tenants therefore bore the market risk and the defences of frustration and abatement were not arguable, the counterclaims for quiet enjoyment and derogation were transient and unsustainable, and final judgment for the plaintiff was properly entered for the contractual arrears with interest and costs while unliquidated damages/mesne profits are left to assessment where appropriate.
6 Jan 2020

LEUNG WAI LING ISEWESG v. SUCCESS BASE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 202
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2/2019

The court exercised its discretion to permit the plaintiff to amend the amended statement of claim to plead forfeiture of the HK$133,500 rental deposit because the clause in the tenancy agreement expressly precluded application of the deposit to rent and treated early termination as abandonment of the right to its return, no unfair prejudice to the defendant was shown, and the defendant's counterclaim depended on a repudiation not accepted by the court; accordingly the judgment includes forfeiture of the deposit (HK$133,500), arrears of rent (HK$133,500) and mesne profits (HK$8,400), and the…
15 Jul 2019

PARK CHUL SOO v. SWEE KHENG BUILDING MATERIAL CO LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCA 778
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV318/2018

Applicant failed to show a counterclaim/set-off equal to or exceeding the debt specified in the statutory demand as required by r.48(5)(a) BR and did not tender the balance of the debt or invoke residual discretion; therefore the statutory demand could not be set aside and there was no basis to apportion costs; the order nisi was made absolute and costs awarded to the respondent.
20 May 2019

CHEONG SHING WATER SUPPLIES ENGINEERING LTD v. FULL WIN BUILDING SERVICES LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 559
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ985/2018

The 2nd Affirmation and the letter of 14 February 2019 were not admitted because the information they contained could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and did not add materially finalised evidence; the defendant failed to explain the delay or to justify a new round of evidence. The defendant produced no evidence to substantiate its counterclaim or set-off allegations and had admitted the MA in its pleadings; accordingly there was no bona fide triable defence to the claim under the MA and summary judgment was appropriate. The Master's grant of unconditional leave to defend was set…
16 Mar 2018

RE JAMES CHOR CHEUNG WONG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1048/2017

A statutory demand founded on an unregistered foreign court order is misconceived because the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance requires registration before enforcement or use for bankruptcy proceedings; alternatively, the debtor demonstrated a bona fide substantial counterclaim exceeding the petitioning debt. Consequently the bankruptcy petition was dismissed with costs to the debtor.
11 Aug 2017

RE TIN WAN TUNG

Citation

RE TIN WAN TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW251/2016

The companies failed to discharge the onus of showing a bona fide counterclaim on substantial grounds equal to or exceeding the indisputable petitioning debt (taxed costs of HK$560,527.07); the taxed costs are final and payable; the companies are insolvent; accordingly a winding up order was justified and should be made.
11 Aug 2017

RE TIN WAN TUNG

Citation

RE TIN WAN TUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW250/2016

The taxed costs order of HK$560,527.07 was final and payable; the Companies failed to pay and are insolvent; they did not establish a bona fide counterclaim on substantial grounds equal to or exceeding the petitioning debt (the counterclaims relied on documents likely to be set aside for misrepresentation); therefore a winding up order was appropriate and must be made.
30 Oct 2015

KAR MING ENGINEERING CO LTD v. PACIFIC MARBLE & GRANITE (HK) LTD

Citation

KAR MING ENGINEERING CO LTD v. PACIFIC MARBLE & GRANITE (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ418/2013

On balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved the Original Works claim net of payments but failed to prove the full claimed variation sum due to lack of contemporaneous records and agreement; only HKD60,750 of variation works was established as payable. The defendant failed to prove defective workmanship causally attributable to the plaintiff or the quantum of remedial costs; the counterclaim was dismissed.
26 Sept 2014

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION AND OTHERS v. CHAN TZE NGON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1062/2012

The judge allowed the appeal, set aside Master Chow's dismissal and ordered security for costs of HK$1,000,000 for costs incurred up to 9 September 2013 because the plaintiffs are foreign and impecunious, the delay in applying for security was not sufficiently prejudicial or dilatory to bar the order, the counterclaim was insignificant compared with the plaintiffs' claims and did not justify refusal, the court will not resolve merits at interlocutory stage, and the presented bill was excessive and inadequately particularised so a reduced security figure was appropriate.
30 May 2014

KNORR BREMSE ASIA PACIFIC (HOLDING) LTD v. NG LAI CHING LUCIA

Citation

KNORR BREMSE ASIA PACIFIC (HOLDING) LTD v. NG LAI CHING LUCIA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3796/2011

Because the claim and counterclaim were interrelated and there was no clear overall winner, the court treated the litigation as a draw; both parties had acted unreasonably to some extent and contributed to the length of the trial, and no prejudice arose from the Plaintiff's late procedural step so extension was granted but the Plaintiff's application to vary the costs order nisi was dismissed and the earlier costs order nisi (no order as to costs) was made absolute.