Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Letter of indemnity

Legal area

Court

10 May 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD (formerly known as CHIHO TIANDE GROUP LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1272
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

The court held that (a) on the evidence the LOI indemnity was not in dispute and CT showed a sufficiently high threshold likelihood of success on the indemnity claim to justify an interim payment, but the claimed sum was excessive so an interim payment of HK$9,200,000 was ordered; and (b) CT did not have the requisite possession, custody or power over CT Metals' documents because the corporate structure and PRC arrangements meant no presently enforceable right existed, so the specific discovery application was dismissed.
21 Oct 2014

GLOBAL MARITIME TRUST (S) PTE LTD v. FORTRESS GROUP LTD

Citation

GLOBAL MARITIME TRUST (S) PTE LTD v. FORTRESS GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL23/2014

The court granted the mandatory interim injunction ordering the defendant to provide security by a specified deadline because the plaintiff had shown a strong prima facie case, the defendant's indemnity obligation had been triggered and there was a real and immediate risk of arrest (including issuance of a writ in rem); the defendant's assertion of impecuniosity was rejected as insufficiently credible and certainty of the order was achieved by specifying the forms and amount of security.
30 Apr 2014

HOWARD ROBERT BALLOCH AND ANOTHER v. ING YIM LEUNG ALEXANDER ALSO KNOWN AS ALEX ING

Citation

HOWARD ROBERT BALLOCH AND ANOTHER v. ING YIM LEUNG ALEXANDER ALSO KNOWN AS ALEX ING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1556/2013

Summary judgment under Order 14 was refused because the scope of the indemnity and the existence and effect of the reasonableness/pre-approval conditions raised serious material factual disputes requiring oral evidence and cross-examination; security for costs under Order 23 was refused because the plaintiffs, though resident abroad, were prominent individuals with an even chance of success and there was no sufficient risk they would not honour costs orders; accordingly both interlocutory applications were dismissed and each party ordered to bear their own costs.
29 Jun 2012

NANTONG ANGANG GARMENTS CO LTD v. HELLMANN INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LTD

Citation

NANTONG ANGANG GARMENTS CO LTD v. HELLMANN INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV106/2011

The court held that the letter of indemnity did not create a liquidated claim; indemnity claims are generally unliquidated unless a fixed sum is specified. Consequently the 2nd Third Party was not entitled to appeal as of right on the basis that the judgment exceeded HK$1,000,000, and leave to appeal was refused.
10 May 2012

NANTONG ANGANG GARMENTS CO LTD v. HELLMANN INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LTD

Citation

NANTONG ANGANG GARMENTS CO LTD v. HELLMANN INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV106/2011

The letter of indemnity, read in its factual matrix and against surrounding correspondence, was intended to and did indemnify Hellmann for all responsibilities and liabilities directly or indirectly arising from or relating to the route change, including Hellmann's liability to the consignor (Nantong) for delivering the goods to Hong Kong contrary to the consignor's rights; accordingly the Third Parties were bound to indemnify Hellmann for the damages paid to Nantong.
21 Jul 2011

MEDIATEK INCORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. MORRISON EXPRESS CORP. LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MEDIATEK INCORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. MORRISON EXPRESS CORP. LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ153/2009

The court held that the 2nd Defendant had not proven it was acting as agent of the Plaintiffs and the available evidence (including the timing of appointments and the Letter of Indemnity) indicated D2 acted as principal when engaging D3; accordingly D2 is vicariously liable for D3's negligence. Liability is established; quantum remains to be assessed and issues as to the applicability and reasonableness of any limitation clauses are triable.
27 May 2011

NANTONG ANGANG GARMENTS CO LTD v. HELLMANN INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LTD

Citation

NANTONG ANGANG GARMENTS CO LTD v. HELLMANN INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL117/1994

The Lerner HAWBs (Shanghai to Columbus) were the operative contracts; Nantong, as consignor, retained the right to direct disposition until the consignee's rights arose at the declared destination; the secret Silking HAWBs did not create a contractual entitlement in Silking or Lerner to take delivery in Hong Kong; Hellmann breached Nantong's rights by delivering in Hong Kong and became liable to Nantong; Silking's 4 March 1994 letter of indemnity was wide enough to cover liabilities arising from the route change so Silking and Lerner must indemnify Hellmann for the loss (less the notional val…
4 Jun 2010

RED CHAMBER CO v. LAU SIU MAN t/a PROFESSIONAL CARGO DELIVER SERVICES CO

Citation

RED CHAMBER CO v. LAU SIU MAN t/a PROFESSIONAL CARGO DELIVER SERVICES CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2790/2009

Summary judgment was refused because the case turns on contested credibility and factual disputes—whether a clerical mistake occurred and whether the defendant acted in good faith on his principal's instructions—matters that require cross-examination; accordingly the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend and the matter must proceed to trial on the facts.
9 Sept 2009

MAU WING INDUSTRIAL LTD v. ENSIGN FREIGHT PTE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAU WING INDUSTRIAL LTD v. ENSIGN FREIGHT PTE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL27/2008

The court held that Ensign Freight Pte Ltd was the contractual carrier and that Clause 11.3 did not operate to limit the carrier's liability for delivery of the cargo without production of the original bill of lading; the limitation clause could not be construed to reduce the carrier's liability for that deliberate misdelivery and plaintiff was entitled to recover the full invoice value of US$283,093.70. The COECO point was unnecessary to decide.
11 Aug 2009

YANG MING MARINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. SHING LEE ENGINEERING CONTAINER CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

YANG MING MARINE TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. SHING LEE ENGINEERING CONTAINER CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA208/2008

Court found on balance that the letters of indemnity were signed by the 1st Defendant as agent for the 2nd Defendant but without disclosing the principal to the Plaintiffs; under law of undisclosed principal both agent and principal are liable to the contracting third party; the letters were in favour only of the 1st Plaintiff so only the 1st Plaintiff suffered recoverable loss; there was no conversion because possession was obtained with plaintiffs' consent; damages equal the settled sum US$253,655.50 plus interest and costs.