Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Date of assessment

Legal area

Court

10 Feb 2023

QU SHUNCAI v. CHINA BEIDAHUANG INDUSTRY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 397
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1867/2015

Defendant had wrongfully refused to issue and allot the Option Shares on valid exercises; Defendant failed to prove mitigation or possession of inside information; on counterfactual assumption Defendant would have approved Plaintiff's exercises at the Board meeting and issued share certificates on 29 June 2015, so damages are assessed by market price at that date less subscription prices; award assessed at HK$4,394,000 plus interest and costs against Defendant.
6 Feb 2023

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 147
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP454/2022

Leave to appeal refused because the Court of Appeal found the Judge correctly exercised her discretion: the proposed P-Design amendments were not shown to be bound to fail on their face, the issues including the date of assessment and need for expert evidence are fact-sensitive and for trial, and the plaintiff failed to meet the high threshold for interlocutory leave; consequential orders including permission for reciprocal expert evidence and costs were properly made.
18 Aug 2022

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2566
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL13/2011

Amendments allowed because they raise bona fide matters of assessment not bound to fail, the merits are for trial, the proposed P-Design Argument could affect the date and basis of assessment and is not unduly late such that prejudice cannot be compensated by costs; consequential expert evidence permitted on those issues with directions and timetable to be agreed and costs ordered accordingly.
19 Jan 2016

WONG SHUN KIT v. KOZUCHOVA ZUZANA

Citation

WONG SHUN KIT v. KOZUCHOVA ZUZANA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2213/2012

The court applied the compensatory principle and, although the general rule is assessment at date of breach, accepted the plaintiffs' submission to use the completion date 20 November 2012 (six days after repudiation) because the difference was immaterial; it accepted the surveyor valuations as at that date and calculated damages as market value less contract price and less deposit, awarding the resulting sums and ordering interest and costs accordingly.
30 Jun 2001

Yau Fook Hong Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yu Ming

Citation

Yau Fook Hong Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yu Ming
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7521/1997

In the absence of evidence of resale efforts the court fixed the assessment date as 26 February 1998 (date vacant possession was obtained), accepted a median open market value of HK$605,000 and calculated a deficiency of HK$264,850, but declined to finally determine the plaintiff's quantum of damages because claims on forfeiture of deposit and instalments remained unresolved and clause 20 may bar recovery of deficiency if resale did not occur within six months.
11 Dec 1998

WONG MAN KIT RAYMOND v. CHAN NAM FAN

Citation

WONG MAN KIT RAYMOND v. CHAN NAM FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4391/1997

Clause 16 of the parties' Sale and Purchase Agreement modified the normal rule; the vendor was entitled to recover the deficiency equal to the contract price less the actual resale price, after crediting the forfeited deposit, and judgment was entered for the defendant on the counterclaim in the sum calculated accordingly (HK$1,121,200).

Hong Kong Case Law

QU SHUNCAI v. CHINA BEIDAHUANG INDUSTRY GROUP HOLDINGS LTD

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

WONG SHUN KIT v. KOZUCHOVA ZUZANA

Yau Fook Hong Co. Ltd. v. Chan Yu Ming

WONG MAN KIT RAYMOND v. CHAN NAM FAN