Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Full and final settlement

Legal area

Court

3 Feb 2023

張麗雯對呂劍華

Citation

[2023] HKDC 105
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1792/2021

The variation summons was dismissed because the defendant relied on settlement offers expressly stated to be full and final settlements of all claims while there had been no final adjudication on liability or quantum; therefore the offers could not be meaningfully compared with the interim costs order and the application was premature; the interim costs order was made absolute and the defendant ordered to pay the summons costs.
28 May 2013

KUAN KAM YUNG v.TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE

Citation

KUAN KAM YUNG v.TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3702/2011

The Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the $400,000 constituted a loan and that a specific loan balance was owing; however, after assessing contributions and disallowed items, the court found Plaintiff was underpaid from the Property sale and ordered Defendant to pay Plaintiff HK$142,237; the court also found there was no proved common intention that the HK$350,000 constituted a full and final settlement and dismissed Defendant's counterclaim.
13 Oct 2006

HAU CHAT TONG v. HAU CHAK LAM

Citation

HAU CHAT TONG v. HAU CHAK LAM
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4772/2005

Judge found on balance that the Defendant was indebted in the sum of HK$2,058,838 after accounting for sale proceeds and costs, that the brothers agreed to reduce the indebtedness to HK$1,000,000 each with no interest, and that the Defendant's transfer of his 1/3 interest in the 2nd property was not a full and final settlement; consequently judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$1,000,000 with interest and costs.
7 Jul 2005

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING

Citation

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA425/2002

Although elements of success lay with both parties, the counterclaim was abandoned and the defendant's evidence had parts rejected; after assessing time spent and offsetting the parties' wins and losses, the court found the reasonable outcome was to make the order nisi absolute that each party bear their own costs.
8 Feb 2005

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. AU WAI MING

Citation

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. AU WAI MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4016/2004

The court found the debtor's asserted disputes and cross‑claims were not bona fide on substantial grounds and were unsubstantiated and unbelievable on the evidence; the alleged global settlement was not evidenced in writing and payments were applied to costs and the judgment debt; the cross‑claim was unsupported and any company claim would accrue to the company. Therefore the petition succeeded and the debtor was adjudged bankrupt with an order nisi for costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

張麗雯 對 呂劍華

KUAN KAM YUNG v.TSE JACQUELINE KAR YUE

HAU CHAT TONG v. HAU CHAK LAM

OAKSHORSE FARM CORPORATION v. YAU FOOK PING

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS v. AU WAI MING

張麗雯對呂劍華