Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel by conduct

Legal area

Court

20 Aug 2020

AU CHI CHIU AND ANOTHER v. HO CHI HUNG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2910/2018

A final anti-suit injunction and damages of RMB 70,000 were awarded because plaintiffs were entitled to that primary relief and defendant conceded liability on damages; summary judgment for recovery of the RMB 2,000,000 Settlement Fee was refused because there is a triable issue whether plaintiffs, by seeking and obtaining injunctive relief, elected to affirm the Settlement Agreement (or whether any alleged repudiation was purged by withdrawal of PRC proceedings) and because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate total failure of consideration required for restitution, so defendant has an arguable…
16 Jul 2018

SI TOU CHOI KAM v. WEALTH CREDIT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 399
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the proposed grounds were either new or fact‑sensitive, did not arise from this Court's judgment and did not raise questions of great or general public importance; Lok J's earlier declaration that the husband held the property on resulting trust binds the defendant and, on that basis, charging orders could not be made and should be discharged.
30 Apr 2018

SI TOU CHOI KAM v. WEALTH CREDIT LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 250
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV167/2017

Where a court-declared trust shows the judgment debtor never had a beneficial interest, the court lacked jurisdiction to make charging orders under s52AA and those orders must be discharged and their Land Registry registrations vacated; although the declaration is in personam, the defendant with knowledge of the High Court proceedings and who allowed the declaration to be obtained without intervening is estopped from denying it, so the declaration is binding on the defendant in these proceedings.
19 Oct 2016

HONG CHI YUNG v. CHUNG NGAI KIT (the executor of the Estate of CHUNG HUNG CHONG, Deceased)

Citation

HONG CHI YUNG v. CHUNG NGAI KIT (the executor of the Estate of CHUNG HUNG CHONG, Deceased)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA54/2014

The court found, on the balance of evidence, that the deceased made clear promises that the Property would be for the plaintiff and her son, the plaintiff reasonably relied and suffered substantial detriment in paying debts, mortgage instalments and redeeming the mortgage so that it would be unconscionable for the legal owner or his estate to deny her interest; accordingly both proprietary estoppel and a common intention constructive trust were established and the appropriate proprietary remedy was to treat the parties as joint tenants so that the plaintiff became sole beneficial owner on the…
23 Oct 2013

DRAGON TOP INVESTMENTS LTD v. ABLE HK HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

DRAGON TOP INVESTMENTS LTD v. ABLE HK HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ824/2013

Defendant failed to answer both title requisitions by the scheduled completion date of 28 February 2013; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to rescind the Agreement and recover the deposits (HK$155,000) and title investigation costs (HK$12,000) with interest and to a declaration of lien. The court rejected defendant's contention that completion was extended and found the defendant did not properly answer the requisitions; although estoppel by conduct was arguable it was not pleaded or raised in the replies and did not prevent the finding on failure to answer requisitions. Consequently secur…
8 Dec 2003

VIRTYRE LTD v. CENTURY GROUP LTD

Citation

VIRTYRE LTD v. CENTURY GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3235/2003

On the evidence before the court the defendant would, at trial, likely be held liable to pay for use and occupation: the defendant had agreed to pay basic rent of HK$106,000 per month for the ground and first floors from 1 September 2003 and had been doing so; the alleged variation and estoppel did not, on the evidence, discharge liability for the period up to 31 August 2003. Accordingly an interim payment is justified and the Registrar's dismissal is set aside, with specified interim sums ordered.
17 Apr 2002

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

ORIENTAL PRESS GROUP LTD. v. NEXT MAGAZINE PUBLISHING LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1006/2000

The Court held that on the proper construction the words complained of were not reasonably capable of bearing the pleaded natural or innuendo defamatory meanings save that a limited less injurious innuendo (that appointment was approved by a fugitive from justice) could stand if the extrinsic fact of flight were proved from earlier articles; the estoppel objection failed; Mr Yip could be a witness of extrinsic facts but could not be equated with an ordinary reader; and the judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering costs for the amendment.
10 Jan 2002

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 and had waived their right to dispute authority/authenticity of attendees because they had participated in the 17 August 2000 meeting, returned and cast votes after initially objecting; their conduct constituted a clear and unequivocal representation relied upon by others causing detriment; accordingly the review was dismissed and original decision affirmed.
20 Nov 2001

HUA RONG FINANCE LTD. v. MEGA CAPITAL ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANOTHER

Citation

HUA RONG FINANCE LTD. v. MEGA CAPITAL ENTERPRISES LTD. & ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1086/2000

The appeal is dismissed: the mortgage and associated documents were forged and there was no representation by the company that the 2nd defendant had authority to borrow or execute the mortgage; the plaintiff relied on forged board minutes so cannot establish ostensible authority or estoppel; unjust enrichment fails because the company neither requested, used nor retained the funds; therefore the plaintiff cannot enforce the loans against the 1st defendant.
6 Nov 2001

BONUS GARMENT CO. v. KARL RIEKER GMBH & CO. KG & ANOTHER

Citation

BONUS GARMENT CO. v. KARL RIEKER GMBH & CO. KG & ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV3/2001

Renner did not have actual authority to bind the 1st defendant because there was no meeting of minds on essential terms (different prices and shipment terms), Renner deliberately concealed the order confirmation from the 1st defendant precluding ratification, and the 1st defendant was not estopped from denying agency; accordingly the plaintiff cannot enforce the order confirmation against the 1st defendant and the appeal is dismissed.