Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duplication of claims

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2021

FRUIT DESIGN AND BUILD LTD v. LEUNG KWOK PONG ALSO KNOWN AS ADAM LEUNG

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3391
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA334/2020

The court held that the plaintiff's 2019 contractual claim for unpaid progress payments under IPA Nos 8–16 is a liquidated demand because the Progress Payment Clause conferred an ascertainable interim valuation mechanism; the plaintiff's post-judgment application to amend to add quantum meruit was disallowed as not exceptional and requiring writ amendment; the 2019 final judgment was irregular as entered for amounts exceeding contractual entitlement and was therefore varied down to HK$3,514,686 while the 2020 final judgment (which duplicated claims and contained unliquidated elements) was set…
30 Jan 2004

GUARDIAN FIRE ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD v. LAW CHI SHUN t/a TECHNICOM ENGINEERING CO

Citation

GUARDIAN FIRE ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD v. LAW CHI SHUN t/a TECHNICOM ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT95/2001

The court applied its earlier findings on liability: Technicom succeeds on the unit rate issue generally but Guardian succeeds where duplication is established; the court therefore applied those findings to the figures presented, awarded VO3A at the conceded figure of $1,902,000 and set median figures for VO6, VO34 and VO44, resulting in a revised TOP 1 award of $2,949,641 and amendment of the summons paragraphs as specified.
30 Jan 2004

LAW CHI SHUN t/a TECHNICOM ENGINEERING CO v. GUARDIAN FIRE ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

LAW CHI SHUN t/a TECHNICOM ENGINEERING CO v. GUARDIAN FIRE ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT8/2000

The court applied its prior findings on liability: Technicom succeeds on the unit rate issue for sprinkler heads but Guardian succeeds where duplication of claims is proved; the court adopted figures presented in closing submissions (and median figures for small disputed sums) to determine quantum without re-opening the trial. As a result the court fixed VO3A at $1,902,000, VO6 at $73,725, VO34 at $23,400, VO44 at $93,375 and adjusted the TOP1 figure to $2,949,641, and amended the summons paragraphs accordingly.
17 Oct 1973

COUTINHO, CARO & CO v. SHIU WING CO LTD

Citation

COUTINHO, CARO & CO v. SHIU WING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2042/1970

The Taxing Master must moderate party-and-party recoveries under Order 62 by allowing only reasonable and necessary counsel fees and disbursements; accordingly items 78 and 79 were disallowed as unnecessary/duplicative, counsel brief and refresher allowances were limited as taxed, only one return flight and reasonable days and subsistence were allowed for foreign experts with a capped sum for the expert report, the agent's expenses were wholly disallowed as not reasonably incurred, duplicated item 342 disallowed, and the costs of the Review ordered to the Defendant.

Hong Kong Case Law

FRUIT DESIGN AND BUILD LTD v. LEUNG KWOK PONG ALSO KNOWN AS ADAM LEUNG

GUARDIAN FIRE ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD v. LAW CHI SHUN t/a TECHNICOM ENGINEERING CO

LAW CHI SHUN t/a TECHNICOM ENGINEERING CO v. GUARDIAN FIRE ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS LTD

COUTINHO, CARO & CO v. SHIU WING CO LTD