Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Nominal damages

Legal area

Court

18 Aug 2025

CHAN KA FOOK v. CHAN CHOI KWONG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1362
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6022/2020

The written Agreement of 16 May 2008 contained the ownership allocation (including the ground floor and garden to the plaintiff); the defendant failed to prove unilateral mistake or forgery; the agreement was not unenforceable for illegality because there was no misrepresentation to government and the case is a 'jump the gun' scenario; the plaintiff acquired an equitable beneficial interest by paying construction costs and the defendant holds the relevant parts on trust; specific performance to transfer legal title and an injunction for trespass are appropriate remedies; nominal damages award…
15 Aug 2025

OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD) v. BANK OF QINGDAO CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1141/2022

The judge found no real prospect of success on any pleaded ground of appeal: the Unless Order was correctly construed in context; relief against sanction was contingent on Ground 1 and therefore not sustainable; the Everglory Amendments are sufficiently clear in context and raise triable issues; the Clause 3.2 Amendments are permissible notwithstanding likely nominal damages; and the summons was dismissed with costs assessed at HK$380,000 but not on an indemnity basis.
23 Jun 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 14
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/2024

The Court held that costs should follow the event: the Respondents failed to show actionable loss (their declared breaches resulted only in nominal damages) and thus must pay PUFG's costs. Harris J's first instance costs order was restored; the Respondents must pay PUFG's costs in the Court of Appeal and in this Court. Given the importance, complexity and the Respondents' conduct of the litigation, a certificate for four counsel was justified for the appeals, and three counsel for first instance and the present application was justified.
28 May 2025

BANK OF QINGDAO CO LTD v. OOO SECURITIES (HK) GROUP LTD (formerly known as ORIENTIERT XYZ SECURITIES LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2223
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1127/2022

The Unless Order did not extend to the Amendment Summons because the phrase 'any other intended interlocutory applications' was limited to applications expressly intended at the time of the CM Order/TTQs; accordingly no relief from sanction was required and Master Val Chow's refusal to make an order on the Relief Summons was correct. The proposed Everglory and Clause 3.2 amendments were not bound to fail, were sufficiently particularised or arose from materials/pleadings already in the record, and caused little prejudice despite delay; leave to amend was therefore properly granted. The appell…
13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1380/2018

Because the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages for its sole successful claim while the bulk of its claims were dismissed and the defendant27s Calderbank offer had specifically highlighted the plaintiff27s difficulty proving loss, the plaintiff could not be regarded as the successful party entitled to costs of the action; accordingly the Costs Order nisi was varied to no order as to costs of the action, but costs of the application were ordered in favour of the defendant.
13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

Costs Order nisi varied: no order as to the costs of the action because, although the plaintiff obtained nominal damages only and some of its claims failed, the plaintiff had meaningful success on the key issue (existence of the Oral Agreement) which led to dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim for unlawful termination; the defendant's Calderbank offers were relevant but one was late and overall did not justify awarding costs to the defendant. The costs of the Application are to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant (certificate for one counsel, to be taxed if not agreed).
13 Mar 2025

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2025] HKDC 366
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ836/2018

Because the plaintiff was awarded only nominal damages and thus could not be regarded as a successful party on the substantive monetary claims, and because the defendant's Calderbank offers (particularly the earlier one) highlighted the plaintiff's inability to prove loss, the Costs Order nisi should be varied so there be no order as to costs of the action; however, the defendant failed on a major issue (existence of the Oral Agreement) which produced consequential results and many plaintiff allegations were not disparate or improperly made, so a costs sanction against the plaintiff for the a…
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ289/2021

The alleged oral agreement was not proved and contradicted documented terms; defendant breached the written employment contract by wilfully refusing to report and by operating NICADA without prior consent, justifying summary dismissal under s9(1) Employment Ordinance; however plaintiff failed to prove any loss or that confidential information or IP was misused or withheld, so relief is nominal damages to plaintiff while defendant is entitled to unpaid wages and annual leave shown to be owing.
28 Nov 2024

SPARKLE CAPITAL LTD v. CHAN WAI MAN also known as CHAN WAI MAN IVAN

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1982
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ836/2018

The oral agreement was rejected as inherently improbable and contradicted by witness evidence and written contract terms; defendant breached the written employment contract by refusing to report to duty and operating his own company without prior written consent, but plaintiff failed to prove misuse or non‑return of confidential information or quantifiable loss from those breaches; therefore dismissal was lawful under s9(1) EO, plaintiff entitled only to nominal damages and defendant entitled to unpaid wages and annual leave shown to be owing.