Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages calculation

Legal area

Court

21 May 2020

LEE KAI YU v. HONG KONG KWONG TAI BUILDERS LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 827
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI1184/2016

The court held that the plaintiff's slip-rule application was misconceived because the judge had already considered all income periods and reached a considered factual assessment (HK$15,000) so the alleged arithmetic error was irrelevant; because the judgment did not exceed the total sanctioned payments the defendant was entitled to have the costs order varied and the sanctioned payments released; interest on costs was fixed at 4.5% and costs of the summons were awarded to the defendant with a summary assessment of HK$80,000.
30 Jun 2015

DR. YIP CHI HIM ROGER AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

DR. YIP CHI HIM ROGER AND ANOTHER v. LEE KWOK LEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA356/2009

Court found plaintiffs (Yip/Capital) made false and fraudulent representations that Tabatha was a clean pink‑sheet shell and that reverse‑merger would be used; Lee relied on those representations and was induced to pay US$350,000 under Tabatha Contract; no contemporaneous or credible evidence justified a consensual change to direct filing or any written amendment; rescission was valid and restitution awarded. On defamation, Lee's allegations that Yip had defrauded were substantially true and s.26 applied to any ancillary imputations about an honorary doctorate; plaintiffs' defamation claim fa…
8 Jul 2011

WING TAT HABERDASHERY CO LTD v. ELEGANCE DEVELOPMENT & INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD

Citation

WING TAT HABERDASHERY CO LTD v. ELEGANCE DEVELOPMENT & INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP357/2011

Leave to appeal was granted because the defendant demonstrated an arguable case with reasonable prospects that the trial judge erred in reducing the counterclaim by 50% by applying a duty to take precautionary steps to losses that were principally replacement costs; the proper statutory test for leave is the s63A Cap.336 reasonable prospect threshold.
23 Sept 2009

WILLAS ARRAY ELECTRONICS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEW TECHNOLOGY CO LTD

Citation

WILLAS ARRAY ELECTRONICS (HONG KONG) LTD v. NEW TECHNOLOGY CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3644/2007

Defendant's conduct and admissions showed refusal to accept delivery rather than reliance on a clearly expressed 'time is of the essence' clause; Plaintiff mitigated loss by resale; therefore Plaintiff entitled to damages of HK$192,248.32 plus interest and costs; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
9 Sept 2008

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YU\'S TIN SING ENTERPRISES CO LTD

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. YU\'S TIN SING ENTERPRISES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA398/2006

The court admitted the conspiracy conviction under s62 Evidence Ordinance and, on the facts proven by that conviction and other evidence, found the defendant breached clause 15 and clause 19 of the Special Conditions of Contract (including failure to pay minimum monthly wages for January and February 2004 and failure to grant statutory holidays), that those breaches were material and within the contractual right to terminate under clause 15.5 and clause 19, and that the Government validly terminated the Contract; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$2,636,203.50 with interest, defendant's co…
26 Apr 2005

LAM FUK PAU v. CANTON CURTAIN WALL ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM FUK PAU v. CANTON CURTAIN WALL ENGINEERING LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI488/2004

Defendants breached statutory and common law duties by failing to provide a suitable safe position or means of support (a raised/appropriate scaffold platform) to allow the plaintiff to plaster the top of the window frame; the plaintiff was, however, 50% contributorily negligent for going onto an obviously unsafe office roof instead of seeking assistance, and damages are reduced by 50% with credit for employee's compensation.
3 Sept 2004

PROMOTEC GMBH v. SAN-BAN INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

PROMOTEC GMBH v. SAN-BAN INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3408/2001

The Court found that copyright in the Jelly Watch JW-01 and JW-02 vested in Promotec because the design derives from Mr Lommerzheim's March 1997 drawings; San-Ban failed to prove prior or joint authorship or third‑party authorship. Promotec was entitled to damages for breach of the licence and unpaid licence fees; claims for restitution of royalties and exemplary damages were dismissed.
16 Apr 2002

KO CHI KEUNG v. LEE PING YAN ANDREW

Citation

KO CHI KEUNG v. LEE PING YAN ANDREW
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA18029/1999

The court found on the evidence that the parties had effectively restored the original Head Agreement; the defendant breached by unilaterally terminating it; the plaintiff was entitled to damages for unpaid advisory fees for the period of reasonable notice (one month standard applied resulting in an award reflecting six months and 20 days) and had an equitable proprietary interest in a portion of the defendant's Holdings shares as at 25 May 1999 with rights to account, tracing and vesting of substituted assets.
4 Oct 2001

LAU CHUN MING v. MA KOON SIK

Citation

LAU CHUN MING v. MA KOON SIK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV705/2001

On the facts and viewed in context the 16 January 1996 letter did not evince a clear intention to abandon or refuse performance of the 10 December 1995 contract; the supplemental agreement was a clarifying/updating instrument and not a condition precedent to performance, and the appellant was the party who repudiated the contract; appeal dismissed.
27 Mar 2000

NKASU, MICHAEL MMAAMA v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG

Citation

NKASU, MICHAEL MMAAMA v. CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7982/1996

The court held that termination without cause by the employer under the contract and Employment Ordinance entitled the employee to wages in lieu and to contractual benefits either in full or pro rata as the contract and statutory definitions permit. Vacation leave carried forward was not forfeited in the circumstances; pro‑rata passage, baggage, education allowance and certain leave and superannuation (employee contribution) were recoverable; employer could not rely on a receipts requirement to defeat a damages claim when its breach prevented performance; claims lacking contractual basis or a…