Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Escrow agreement

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2024

TANG TSO & LAU (A FIRM) v. PINPAL TECH CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 905
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1040/2023

The Buyer raised a bona fide defence of breach of the MOU and equitable estoppel based on a course of negotiations focused on a tax issue which rendered it arguable that the Due Diligence deadline and prescribed cross indemnity form had been varied by conduct; because estoppel and the alleged breach are fact-sensitive and give rise to triable issues, summary determination of entitlement to the Sum was inappropriate and the interpleader proceedings must continue as writ with full pleadings.
26 Apr 2013

ACBEL POLYTECH INC. v. SEC (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

ACBEL POLYTECH INC. v. SEC (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA492/2013

The Plaintiff's application for disclosure was dismissed because the Mareva injunction is not a mechanism to provide security and the Plaintiff failed to show that disclosure was necessary to render the injunction effective; the Defendant was granted a limited order permitting Mizuho to release US$118,717.45 to meet bona fide March 2013 accounts payable, but other payment and disclosure requests were refused; the bank, being a non‑party, was not compelled to act beyond that limited permit; costs orders were made as stated.
12 Feb 2009

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. AIG ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND LP AND OTHERS

Citation

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. AIG ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND LP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/2008

The Court of Appeal held clause 6(a) of the Escrow Agreement was satisfied (Completion Date had not occurred within the stipulated time) and that clause 6(b)(i) was also satisfied because SHC was contractually obliged under the JVA to procure land use certificates (an implied and necessary term) and its failure to do so amounted to a continuing breach; accordingly the defendants were entitled to pro rata distribution under clause 6 and the appeal was allowed.

Hong Kong Case Law

TANG TSO & LAU (A FIRM) v. PINPAL TECH CO., LTD AND OTHERS

ACBEL POLYTECH INC. v. SEC (HONG KONG) CO LTD

THE NEW CHINA HONG KONG GROUP LTD (In liquidation) AND ANOTHER v. AIG ASIAN INFRASTRUCTURE FUND LP AND OTHERS