Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of correspondence

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2016

LEUNG YUET KEUNG v. HARBOUR FRONT LTD

Citation

LEUNG YUET KEUNG v. HARBOUR FRONT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA241/2016

Reading the 9 March 2015 letter in its factual and contractual context, a reasonable reader would understand it as an attempt to effect a sale by means other than the shoot-out provisions and it did not trigger the shoot-out; consequently the plaintiff's 8 and 22 April 2015 letters did not create enforceable rights obliging the defendant to buy nor did they constitute a valid offer under the shoot-out provisions — all four preliminary issues are decided in the negative.
28 Jan 2014

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV96/2012

Leave to appeal was refused. Top Selection was not entitled to appeal as of right under s22(1)(a) because the immediate legal effect of the impugned orders was the transfer of nominal shares whose value could not be quantified as meeting the HK$1,000,000 threshold without further assessment; the questions advanced for discretionary leave were fact-sensitive, not of great general or public importance and not reasonably arguable. Hu's application for leave was dismissed for similar reasons, including that alleged unpleaded fraud and burden issues were not grounds for discretionary leave here. C…
28 Jan 2014

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV94/2012

Leave to appeal was refused. Top Selection was not entitled to appeal as of right under s22(1)(a) because the immediate effect of the orders below was to transfer nominal shares whose value could not be quantified at or above the statutory threshold without further assessment; the proposed points did not raise questions of great general or public importance and were fact-sensitive or not reasonably arguable. Hu's discretionary application was likewise refused for being fact-sensitive, academic or without merit; the "or otherwise" ground did not establish exceptional circumstances to grant lea…
28 Jan 2014

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV95/2012

Leave to appeal was refused. The second limb of s22(1)(a) was not satisfied because the immediate subject of the orders were shares of negligible par value whose market value could not be quantified without further valuation and adjudication, so the HK$1,000,000 immediacy threshold was not met; the questions raised were fact-sensitive or applied settled principles and did not raise questions of great general or public importance nor were they reasonably arguable; Hu's contention of miscarriage of justice on unpleaded fraud was not an exceptional circumstance warranting leave.
17 Oct 2012

GALAXY CHINA DEEP VALUE FUND v. TANG JUN AND OTHERS

Citation

GALAXY CHINA DEEP VALUE FUND v. TANG JUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1630/2011

Defendants failed to establish any bona fide triable issue because the Security Agreement, properly construed with the correspondence, did not clearly and validly replace clause 4.1(2); any variation would have to comply with clause 11.2 requiring a signed document and that condition was not met; accordingly summary judgment for the plaintiffs was warranted.
4 May 2007

KWAN CHUI KWOK YING AND ANOTHER v. TAO WAI CHUN AND OTHERS

Citation

KWAN CHUI KWOK YING AND ANOTHER v. TAO WAI CHUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2996/1990

The Third Party Proceedings were in substance a matter arising in the administration of the estate (category 2 of In re Buckton) so costs of parties are properly paid out of the estate taxed as between solicitor and client; however the 6th Defendant's malicious, scandalous and vexatious conduct justified indemnity costs to be paid by him personally and the estate should not be ordered to pay indemnity costs on his behalf; therefore the prior Costs Order items requiring the estate to pay 50% upfront on an indemnity basis were set aside and replaced by an order that the estate pay the 15th Defe…

Hong Kong Case Law

LEUNG YUET KEUNG v. HARBOUR FRONT LTD

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

PACIFIC ELECTRIC WIRE & CABLE COMPANY LTD v. TEXAN MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS

GALAXY CHINA DEEP VALUE FUND v. TANG JUN AND OTHERS

KWAN CHUI KWOK YING AND ANOTHER v. TAO WAI CHUN AND OTHERS