Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim payments

Legal area

Court

2 May 2025

WMF v. TY aks TLY, the executrix to the estate of the Deceased

Citation

[2025] HKFC 77
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP24/2023

Applicant, as surviving spouse of a long 31-year marriage with demonstrated contributions and limited resources, established entitlement to additional financial provision. Court assessed reasonable monthly needs at HK$32,070, applied a multiplier of 8 years, and awarded a lump sum of HK$3,078,720 (which is to include interim payments already made). The balance is payable by the Respondent from the estate within 28 days. Costs ordered to be paid out of the Deceased's estate (costs order nisi, 14 days).
17 Feb 2023

SZE FUNG ENGINEERING LTD v. TREVI CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT51/2019

Item 18 of the Quotation was unambiguous and established a back-to-back/pay-when-paid term: SF's entitlement to payment was conditional on Trevi receiving payment from Leighton/CLP and Trevi would release payment to SF within three days of receipt. Clause 18 of the Subcontract was not incorporated by reference. Consequently SF is not entitled to payment for works, variations or other claims unless Leighton certified and paid those amounts to Trevi; most of SF's claims were therefore dismissed except agreed items and amounts allowed by the court.
7 Dec 2022

CHIU SUI CHING, the administrator of the estate of LEUNG HO TIN, deceased v. CHENG KWAI HUNG t/a HANG NAGI WORKS AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3642
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI939/2017

Interest on bereavement was to be calculated at 8% per annum from the date of death up to the date of the interim payment (5 years) rather than to the date of the EC award or to judgment; the court adopted the parties' agreed factual dates and revised the interest calculations accordingly and granted final judgment for the revised net sum after deducting the EC payment.
30 Sept 2022

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. A TECH M & E ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT65/2019

On the evidence the court found two binding lump‑sum sub‑contracts were formed based on the amended quotations and parties' conduct; absence of unit rates/breakdown did not defeat contractual certainty in the circumstances; BeSpark repudiated the contracts by termination and A‑Tech was entitled to the value of work done at contract prices (HKD 1,472,522.53 net) plus damages for loss of profit calculated at 7.5% of the remaining contract value (HKD 1,523,402.83), totaling HKD 2,995,925.36, with interest and costs.
29 Jul 2022

HUANG YUNLIAN 對 XUN YAO CONSTRUCTION LTD 及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 715
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC2048/2018

Because the applicant unreasonably refused multiple generous provisional payments and pursued trial with exaggerated and untruthful evidence, the court exercised its discretion under Order 22(23) to vary the provisional costs order: the applicant must repay interim payments, respondents may withdraw the remaining court deposit, the applicant bears costs on an indemnity basis for post-9 November 2018 proceedings, interest on costs is increased to judgment rate plus 5% (with pre-judgment interest at half that rate), and the applicant is denied interest on the compensation award from 9 November…
31 Aug 2021

JOHNSON CONTROLS HONG KONG LTD v. WANGLE ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2560
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2239/2016

The court accepted contemporaneous interim payment certifications and payments as establishing that the defendant had completed all work within the contract by 3 September 2015; plaintiff failed to prove the late, unpleaded assertions (all-inclusive contract, provisional certification, common understanding re double-handling) and causal links to Gammon contra charges or Link-Foong rectification costs; conversely, contemporaneous documents and communications established that much extra work was instructed as variations and defendant was entitled to the VOs sums and materials reimbursement, les…
11 Mar 2020

YOU’S KITCHEN LTD v. LAM KWOK KWONG formerly t/a STAR BRIGHT ENGINEERING & INSTALLATION CO

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 411
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1962/2015

On uncontested credible evidence the court found the agreed unit prices and quantities proven, accepted invoices as records of work done and that variation work was payable at the reasonable invoiced sums, credited interim payments, and therefore awarded the net contractual sums plus interest and costs.
20 Jun 2019

TACTFUL CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING (HK) LTD v. UNIVIC ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT57/2016

The 24/1 email together with the attached bill of quantities constituted a counter-offer that the Plaintiff accepted by commencing work with knowledge of its terms; therefore the contract rates are those set out in the 24/1 BQ. The Defendant failed to prove that SK rates applied or that the Plaintiff abandoned the contract as pleaded; the Plaintiff is not entitled to the EF coupler claim for lack of proof; the Defendant failed to prove rectification costs but proved extra costs for completion of 48m of works which are allowed on the counterclaim.
22 Sept 2017

WONG KWONG SAN v. LEE CHOI WAN

Citation

WONG KWONG SAN v. LEE CHOI WAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI700/2010

Because the sanctioned payment exceeded the judgment and the plaintiff could have accepted it without leave by 19 May 2011 but did not, the court disallowed interest and judgment interest accruing after that date, ordered repayment of overpaid interim payments, and awarded costs from 20 May 2011 to the defendant on High Court scale and indemnity basis with specified enhanced interest on costs and disbursements.
10 Feb 2017

BAYNARD LTD 對壬旺上

Citation

BAYNARD LTD 對壬旺上
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4374/2016

Intervener's claim to be the true tenant was dismissed as previously rejected by the court and unsupported by credible evidence (res judicata and lack of proof). The landlord validly exercised the break clause with proper notice; the defendant admitted arrears; there is no real prospect of a triable defence to the claims. Accordingly summary judgment was proper: plaintiff entitled to possession, to recover arrears (HKD112,000), ongoing mesne profits at HKD28,000 per month from 1 September 2016 until delivery, interest on arrears at 1.5% per month until judgment (then judgment rate), damages f…