Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Measure of damages

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

LAM CHUI SHAN AND ANOTHER v. MANFUL GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKDC 13
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1264/2023

Plaintiffs breached the ASPs by failing to complete; Clause 17(1) of the ASPs only forfeited the initial deposit paid on signing PASP so the Vendor wrongfully withheld the second and third deposits and must return them; Clause 17(2) does not preclude the Vendor from electing common law damages; the Vendor is entitled to recover the proven price deficiency on 16E and specific resale expenses subject to mitigation and disallowance of items not within contemplation (notably agent commissions and speculative marketing allocations); net set-off results in Vendor owing Plaintiffs HK$125,943; no ord…
2 Feb 2026

RICKEED INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG TOHKOH COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 105
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2022

The appeal was allowed because the judge's factual finding that a majority of the goods under PO1 and PO2 were defective lacked evidential basis; in consequence breach of the implied conditions and causation of the claimed loss were not established and the damages award based on resale differentials was unsafe; the judgment below was set aside and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
19 Mar 2025

PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP COMPANY LIMITED (北大方正集團有限公司) v. NUOXI CAPITAL LIMITED (諾熙資本有限公司) (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS)

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2024

The Court held that the issuers/guarantors suffered no compensable loss from PUFG's failure to make funds available under clause 4.1(ii) because performance by way of a loan would have replaced the pre-existing liability to bondholders with an equal liability to the lender, leaving no net diminution in the issuers' consolidated net worth; therefore the Court of Appeal declarations awarding substantive sums could not stand and were varied to record that the breaches on 16 April 2020 sound in nominal damages only, with the true commercial loss being that of the bondholders recoverable by the tr…
19 Mar 2025

PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP COMPANY LIMITED (北大方正集團有限公司) v. HONGKONG JHC CO., LIMITED (香港京慧誠有限公司)(IN LIQUIDATION)

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 6
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2024

The Court held that on the pleaded facts and evidence the Issuers/Guarantors suffered no compensable loss from PUFG's failure to make funds available under clause 4.1(ii) because compliant performance could have been by way of loan or a standby facility which would have replaced bond liabilities with an equal liability and produced no net diminution of the subsidiaries' consolidated net worth; therefore any breach of clause 4.1(ii) on 16 April 2020 only entitled the subsidiaries to nominal damages, the true commercial loss fell on the bondholders who have remedies via the Trustee, and the Dec…
27 Feb 2025

黃錦賢對蕭玉良及另一人

Citation

[2025] HKDC 292
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5107/2017

Defendants were precluded from adducing expert or witness evidence for quantification because they failed to comply with the court's directions; plaintiff's expert evidence and contractor quotation were found credible and showed reasonable reinstatement cost; plaintiff entitled to reinstatement damages of HKD440,000; furniture and appliances claims lacked documentary corroboration and were dismissed; defendants jointly and severally liable for HKD440,000 plus interest from 16 November 2017 at HSBC prime +1% until judgment then at judgment rate; defendants to pay plaintiff's costs and plaintif…
12 Jul 2024

NUOXI CAPITAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 652
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2023

Leave was granted on Question 1 because the issue of whether liquidity obligations that do not improve a plaintiff's net balance sheet can give rise to actionable loss is a question of general importance and is reasonably arguable to be distinguishable from Stanford; leave was refused on Question 2 because the question was misformulated and no specific contrary primary findings were identified such that the correct issue is whether PUFG proved impossibility of all potential modes of performance.
5 Feb 2024

CHIMBUSCO PAN NATION PETRO-CHEMICAL CO LTD v. SILVER LOYAL PETROLEUM LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 186
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2641/2020

Because the Defendant failed to accept delivery and the acceptance deadline had been extended to April 2020, damages are assessed as the contract price less the market price as at 30 April 2020, resulting in an award of US$257,397.50; interest and party-and-party costs were also awarded.
31 Mar 2023

SMITH & ASSOCIATES FAR EAST LTD v. EZ RAM TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 435
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1268/2019

The court accepted the Samsung report and chain of custody evidence showing the tested units were from the delivered lot and that the goods were counterfeit and did not correspond with the PO/SA description; the defendant therefore breached express and implied terms (including s.15(1) SOGO) and plaintiff was entitled to recover the settlement paid to its customer and the contract price for remaining goods totaling US$152,200 plus interest and costs.
16 Dec 2022

MARK O’KANE v. TANG JEB MING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1948/2016

The court held there was no repudiation by Tang for delay because plaintiffs had by words and conduct elected to affirm and continue their contracts despite delay; however Tang repudiated the contracts by arranging an outright sale of the lots to Wong in May 2016 (no credible evidence of a nominee/conditional arrangement), thereby demonstrating an intention not to perform. Damages were awarded to each plaintiff (market value at contractual completion less unpaid balance) with interest; costs ordered against Tang with disallowance of trial‑bundle preparation costs.
14 Jun 2022

JEKCO ELEVATORS LTD v. MILLION HOTEL MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 810
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP101/2022

Leave to appeal refused because defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: breaches occurring under the first agreement cannot be aggregated to justify termination of the second agreement; defendant failed to prove the alleged breaches within the contractual period of the 2nd Agreement (including the 26 June 2017 incident) or that the remedial works were necessitated by plaintiff's breach; award of the unpaid balance of the 2nd Agreement as damages was appropriate absent pleaded mitigation or proof of net profit loss.