Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages inquiry

Legal area

Court

3 Oct 2025

BEST BUY ELECTRIC COMPANY LTD v. BUILT-IN PRO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4728
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1002/2024

On the balance of probabilities the uncontradicted technical and access-log evidence establishes that the defendant obtained unauthorised access to the plaintiff's DQS and downloaded the confidential Quotations; the information was communicated in circumstances importing an obligation of confidence; the defendant has failed to show any real or bona fide defence on the affidavit evidence; accordingly summary judgment on liability is entered for the plaintiff and an inquiry as to damages is ordered.
2 Apr 2013

DAIMLER AG (formerly known as MERCEDES BENZ AG) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAIMLER AG (formerly known as MERCEDES BENZ AG) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4089/1994

No exceptional circumstances existed to justify determining the leave application or adjourning the trial; the hearing of the leave application was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore because the expert evidence was not shown to be decisive of the trial and any error in admitting it could be remedied post-trial, including by limited retrial ordered under Order 59.
21 Jan 2013

DAIMLER AG (formerly MERCEDES BENZ AG) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER

Citation

DAIMLER AG (formerly MERCEDES BENZ AG) v. LEIDUCK, HERBERT HEINZ HORST AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4089/1994

The court refused to order the defendants to answer the interrogatories because, although not served belatedly in the abstract, requiring answers at that late stage would prejudice the defendants and hamper their trial preparation given the complexity and upcoming interlocutory appeal; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse and made no order as to costs.
17 Dec 2012

ELITT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD v. SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

ELITT ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS LTD v. SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1312/2012

Material non-disclosure by the plaintiff (director Lam had approved transfers to Japan and the plaintiff knew) amounted to underhand conduct intended to mislead the court to obtain a Mareva injunction; therefore the court exercised its discretion to vary the costs nisi and order costs on an indemnity basis, including the costs of the variation application.
26 Aug 2011

BIRNAM LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “HONG MING”

Citation

BIRNAM LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “HONG MING”
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ105/2011

The warrant of arrest was set aside because the original MOA was validly terminated for failure to pay the stipulated deposit, no proprietary or possessory interest in the vessel arose from the partial deposit, the claim did not fall within HCO s.12A(2) or the 1952 Arrest Convention, and material non-disclosure together with a likely misuse of the arrest process justified setting aside the arrest and ordering an inquiry into damages.
7 Mar 2008

CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CAPCOM CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. PIONEER TECHNOLOGIES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2655/2007

On an objective assessment the Article as a whole falls within the wide ambit of review and Pioneer's reproduction of approximately 86 frames was, in the main, reasonably necessary for that review; Pioneer has an arguable defence of fair dealing under s.39(1) such that there are triable issues and summary judgment must be dismissed and the matter tried.
18 Jul 2005

PRINGLE OF SCOTLAND LTD v. FUNG YUN-FONG, GLORIA

Citation

PRINGLE OF SCOTLAND LTD v. FUNG YUN-FONG, GLORIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA236/2005

Summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff because the defendant's conduct constituted two distinct forms of passing‑off (false claim of association and misrepresentation of quality), and the alleged defences (parallel importation and lack of intention) did not disclose any triable issue; liability for passing‑off established and quantum to be assessed.
9 Dec 2004

HOVER BASE INVESTMENTS LTD v. BEST CONCEPT MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

HOVER BASE INVESTMENTS LTD v. BEST CONCEPT MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV153/2004

The ex parte injunction was vitiated by material non-disclosure and could not stand; on the merits the defendants demonstrated a strong case (contractual licence acted upon and arguable proprietary estoppel) such that the balance of convenience favored them and the interim injunction evicting them should be discharged; accordingly the appeals were allowed, the injunctions discharged, an inquiry as to damages ordered and costs awarded to the defendants on an indemnity basis (except appeal costs).
21 Apr 2004

CIBA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

CIBA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. TUNG KA HUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW1193/2002

Leave to further amend the petition to add the specified prayers was granted because the additional relief was arguable as within the scope of Section 168A(2) and the Court of Appeal has held that Section 168A petitions may, as a matter of jurisdiction and discretion, include claims overlapping with derivative claims where the statutory criteria are met; the petitioner had already pleaded diversion of business within the petition.
21 Mar 2002

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD. v. GUANGDONG WATER CONSERVANCY & HYDRO-POWER ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD. v. GUANGDONG WATER CONSERVANCY & HYDRO-POWER ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP407/2002

The ex parte interim order was discharged because the Bank failed to disclose material information (the KPMG analysis showing substantial net liabilities even excluding potential government contract liabilities) which was relevant to the court's decision to grant the ex parte stay; despite discharge the court granted a fresh interim stay of the s.228A liquidation pending determination of the Originating Summons and ordered an inquiry into damages, given the subsequent progress of the petition and appointment of provisional liquidators.