Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel/waiver

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2025

RE YAU WING KEUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5551
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1641/2025

The court found the petitioner established a prima facie case under the Loan Deed and assignment; the respondent failed to adducesufficient cogent evidence to show the Loan Deed was a sham, that there was clear and unequivocal estoppel or waiver, or that delivery did not occur (thus limitation did not bar enforcement). Although there is a bona fide dispute that some payments were made on behalf of the lender, the quantum of those set-offs (after accounting for time-barred items and lacking evidence to depress the face value of the assigned loan) was insufficient to extinguish the petition deb…
26 Sept 2025

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. SKK (H.K.) CO LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4536
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP322/2025

The court granted the injunction because the Plaintiff discharged the burden of proving that the debts claimed in SD2 were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds and that the Defendant was, by the hearing date, sufficiently aware of those disputes so that presentation of a petition would be an abuse of process; the Defendant was ordered to pay 95% of the Plaintiff's costs of the Summons on an indemnity basis (5% discount for matters relating to SD1 and SD3).
6 May 2024

TANG KWAI CHEUNG v. YEUNG SZE TING

Citation

[2024] HKCA 383
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV474/2022

On objective analysis the SPA as signed, including Clause 35(c), reflected the parties' binding agreement; there was no continuing common intention or outward expression to exclude Clause 35(c) so rectification failed; the January 2019 payment was unrelated to Clause 35(c) so no estoppel or waiver; Clause 35(c) did not require tender of deposits as a precondition to rescission and the Rescission Letter validly exercised the unilateral right; implied term to procure completion by alternative means would contradict express conditions and was refused; therefore the Recorder's decision was upheld…
26 Feb 2021

CHAN YU YAN v. IMPERIAL SIERRA GROUP LIMITED HOLDINGS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 429
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2048/2019

Defendants failed to adduce sufficient evidence or particulars to establish a bona fide triable issue that an oral collateral agreement or nominee arrangement negated the plaintiff's contractual entitlement under the written Subscription Agreement; absent that evidence and given the entire agreement clause, the appeal was dismissed and summary judgment affirmed.
7 Jan 2021

AH FAT JEAN MAX v. XIAN CORP LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 22
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA11/2019

The Court upheld the Presiding Officer's interpretation that the Annual Commission Clause entitled the appellant to 10% of net profit attributable to his own profit centres; the US$50,000 and US$40,000 payments were interim payments accepted by the appellant and, by the parties' conduct, precluded reliance on the No Oral Modification Clause (waiver/estoppel); the housing allowance was provided in kind and varied by conduct and lapsed on termination; the appellant failed to prove entitlement to the claimed annual leave; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
5 Sept 2018

LIU NG CHAI alias LIU NG TSAI v. 姚華泰

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2041
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA27/2017

Defendant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and failed to show a credible triable issue or arguable defence: the tenancy expired by effluxion of time, post-expiry deposits and deposits after commencement of proceedings did not create a new tenancy or estoppel, and therefore extension of time to appeal was refused and the intended appeal dismissed.
12 Aug 2013

HUA TYAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HUA TYAN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. ZURICH INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV190/2012

The Court of Appeal held the DWT warranty was not inconsistent with naming the vessel and the Insurer was entitled to rely on breach of that warranty; the trial judge's findings on non-disclosure and presumed knowledge of the Insurer could not be sustained. Accordingly the insurer's appeal was allowed, the judgment against the Insurer was set aside, and, because the trial judge had found the Broker liable in the alternative, judgment was entered against the Broker for the insured sum.
17 Feb 2009

W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

W. HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD v. BOOST INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT1/2006

Court held that (1) plaintiff had given sufficient notice under GCC 23 for Event 1 only (24 days) but not for Event 2; (2) alleged estoppel/waiver by defendant was not established because representations were not clear or shown to have been made by someone with authority; (3) the court has power to re‑open and reassess an Architect's EOT decision but does not have power to issue the GCC22 certificate (CNC) required to levy LADs where the Architect has not done so; (4) GCC22(1) requires an independent opinion by the Architect that the works ought reasonably to have been completed by the (exten…
28 Mar 2007

FUJITSU PC ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. TECHNIQUE COMPUTER SYSTEM (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FUJITSU PC ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. TECHNIQUE COMPUTER SYSTEM (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV220/2006

The Court held that the 4 July 1996 agreement required repayment by 30 June 1997 and the guarantee operated if TCS failed to perform under that agreement; there was no legal extension of time or waiver from the written agreement by virtue of alleged oral undertakings or the provision of post-dated cheques, and the judge's adverse credibility findings entitled him to enter summary judgment; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
19 Oct 2001

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS

Citation

TRIUMPHAL FOUNTAIN LTD. AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI LUN AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM309/2001

Applicants were estopped from challenging the meeting because they initially objected then returned and voted without reserving rights; alternatively, on the merits the statutory and contractual requirements (BMO s3 and s5 and DMC provisions) were satisfied: proxies were valid despite lack of corporate seal where authentic and no dishonesty, the chair validly accepted late proxies, and the resolution obtained the requisite share support (30%), therefore the application failed.