Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Knowledge of mistake

Legal area

Court

19 Nov 2018

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 844
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2017

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's finding that the defendant did not know of the plaintiff's currency mistake was not palpably wrong: the evidence (including ambiguous audio and unsatisfactory onward sale evidence) did not provide a reasonable basis to infer actual knowledge or to impose a duty to inquire, and the burden to prove knowledge rested on the plaintiff.
16 May 2018

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 282
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV128/2017

The summons to admit fresh evidence was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to satisfy Ladd v Marshall: the evidence from Judy Lin could have been obtained with reasonable diligence or at least the plaintiff offered no convincing explanation why it could not; the proffered evidence lacked the necessary expert foundation and credibility to be probative on value; and even if the necklace's value were higher, there was no sufficient basis to infer the defendant knew of the plaintiff's mistake. Costs were awarded to the defendant fixed at HKD140,000.
9 May 2017

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD

Citation

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL7/2015

The plaintiff made a genuine unilateral mistake as to currency/price but the defendant did not actually know and there was no sufficient objective basis to infer that the defendant must have known or been willfully blind; therefore there was a binding agreement and no grounds to set it aside; plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs.

Hong Kong Case Law

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD

ESHED DIAM (HK) LTD v. SIAM COLOR GEMS & JEWELRY LTD