Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Legal set-off

Legal area

Court

7 Feb 2025

WEALTHY GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD v. CELEBRITY CREDIT LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 170
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2148/2023

Defendant failed to plead and prove a valid legal set-off: the alleged commissions were neither pleaded with requisite particularity nor proved as liquidated sums ascertainable with certainty; accordingly Defendant is liable to pay Plaintiff HK$1,708,428.27 (95% share) under the Memorandum or alternatively for breach of trust; the Sum is held on trust by Defendant for Plaintiff and Plaintiff is entitled to trace it; interest granted and costs awarded to Plaintiff.
7 Jun 2006

CHEN MING JAMES v. CHEUNG HOI YIN

Citation

CHEN MING JAMES v. CHEUNG HOI YIN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2708/2005

No legal or equitable set-off existed because the alleged breaches were either not acts of the plaintiff (works by Incorporated Owners) or were not sufficiently connected to the rent claim, did not deny use or substantially interfere with enjoyment, and the defendant continued to operate the business; therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff with possession, arrears, interest and costs was appropriate.
13 Jul 2005

SHENZHEN ENVIROTEC ELECTRONICS CO LTD v. CELLPLUS (H K) LTD

Citation

SHENZHEN ENVIROTEC ELECTRONICS CO LTD v. CELLPLUS (H K) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA786/2004

The court found Team Products' misrepresentation defence unsustainable on the evidence because the November 2001 fax did not represent that CellPlus itself became a manufacturer or that factory prices would be charged; Team Products failed to particularize any course of dealing that could ground misrepresentation or equitable set-off; there was insufficient evidence of shipment for the April consignments (no bills of lading) so FOB delivery not proven; the measure of loss on cancelled orders cannot be summarily fixed as total contract price absent proof of costs or continued readiness to perf…
3 Jun 2003

LAU KWOK YIN v. CHEONG TIT PING

Citation

LAU KWOK YIN v. CHEONG TIT PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4559/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the pleadings and evidence disclosed triable issues — notably a plausible counterclaim which may give rise to legal or equitable set-off and uncertainty over facts and translation — such that summary judgment was inappropriate; although the certified translation is presumptively accurate the defendant’s challenge and failure to examine the translator did not eliminate triable issues; therefore appeal to overturn Master’s dismissal of summary judgment was refused and costs awarded to defendant.
30 Apr 2002

HO YIP SHING v. HANDA CONTRACTORS LTD.

Citation

HO YIP SHING v. HANDA CONTRACTORS LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD10/2002

The applicant's counterclaim is a liquidated claim sufficiently arguable as legal set-off which equals or exceeds the statutory demand; the court will not determine merits now but will exercise its discretion to set aside the statutory demand and remit the counterclaim to be litigated in the High Court.
20 Jun 2001

SANDEX INVESTMENT LTD. v. MARLANE INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Citation

SANDEX INVESTMENT LTD. v. MARLANE INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ15587/2000

Two invoice items disputed by the Defendant must go to trial; the debit notes are claims for unliquidated damages and cannot support legal set-off, and equitable set-off has not been established on the affidavit evidence before the court; accordingly the Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the quantifiable balance but execution was stayed because the Defendant's counterclaims were plausible and connected, warranting trial of those counterclaims before enforcement of the judgment.
18 Mar 1998

In re FINBO ENGINEERING CO. LTD.

Citation

In re FINBO ENGINEERING CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW496/1997

Finbo established arguable defences of both legal and equitable set-off that rendered the petition debt substantially and bona fide disputed and, on the exercise of the court's discretion given the substantial pending cross-claims and factual matters bearing on causation and delay, it was not appropriate to make a winding-up order; the petition is therefore dismissed nisi and costs to follow the event.
17 Apr 1982

GOLDEN JET FREIGHT FORWARDERS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TRANSMERIDIAN AIR CARGO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOLDEN JET FREIGHT FORWARDERS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TRANSMERIDIAN AIR CARGO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3488/1979

The appeal was allowed because the defendant in Action 914 (Golden Jet) demonstrated a bona fide triable defence: it could arguably raise a legal set-off/counterclaim against Transmeridian's claim for air charter hire and the strict common law rule against deduction from freight is limited to voyage charters and does not preclude, as a matter of law, a legal set-off in the context of an air charter hire; accordingly leave to sign final judgment was set aside and the actions were consolidated with leave to set off.
17 Apr 1982

TRANSMERIDIAN AIR CARGO LTD v. GOLDEN JET FREIGHT FORWARDERS LTD

Citation

TRANSMERIDIAN AIR CARGO LTD v. GOLDEN JET FREIGHT FORWARDERS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA914/1980

The court held that Golden Jet had a bona fide triable defence because a legal set-off or counterclaim against Transmeridian's claim for hire could arguably be raised in the context of an air charter; therefore leave to sign final judgment should not have been granted on Order 14 and the Master's order was set aside; the actions were to be consolidated with leave to set off and transferred to the Commercial List for full trial.