Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Notice requirements

Legal area

Court

21 Apr 2023

RE XIN HUA SECURITIES (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 579
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP252/2023

The court has jurisdiction under section 62 Trustee Ordinance and Order 92; the applicant demonstrated reasonable efforts to contact the four clients and established that the unclaimed sums are held on trust; accordingly the court granted leave to pay the apportioned balances into court, allowed deduction of apportioned costs (summarily assessed), ordered the applicant to give specified notices and declared that compliance will discharge the applicant's obligations.
25 Aug 2022

AFH HONG KONG STORES, LTD v. FULTON CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1243
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV201/2021

SC(13) Part [1] ('bare shell' condition on each floor) requires the tenant to return the structural frame of each demised floor, which includes reinstatement of entirely or partly demolished floors absent a valid Part [2] notice; Part [2] requires a specific 9 months' prior written notice by the landlord to require leaving or removal of particular items; the three landlord letters did not constitute valid Part [2] notices; appeal allowed in part, lower court orders set aside and matter remitted for trial on outstanding issues.
27 Oct 2017

賴容對宏利人壽保險（國際）有限公司

Citation

賴容對宏利人壽保險（國際）有限公司
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3139/2016

The court held that factual disputes and conflicting medical evidence on whether the plaintiff is 'totally' disabled and whether she was continuously unable to work for 180 days, together with disputed facts concerning compliance with the 30‑day notice requirement, constitute triable issues. Under Order 14 a summary judgment is therefore inappropriate and the matter must proceed to trial; the plaintiff's appeal from the Deputy Registrar's order is dismissed.
23 Dec 2016

TICTAS SYSTEM AUTOMATION LTD v. EXPLORER TRAVEL LTD

Citation

TICTAS SYSTEM AUTOMATION LTD v. EXPLORER TRAVEL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3826/2013

The court found the Defendant's 26 August 2013 termination notice was a deliberate repudiatory breach after the contract had been extended by operation of Clause 12(b); the Plaintiff validly accepted the repudiation and was not required to give notice to cure; Clause 15(g) is a valid liquidated damages provision reflecting a genuine pre‑estimate and legitimate commercial interest and is not a penalty; there was no waiver by the Plaintiff and no duty to mitigate the liquidated sum; judgment entered for the Plaintiff in the sum of HK$624,960 plus interest, with agreed counterclaim sum set off.
6 Jun 2014

TOECA NATIONAL RESOURCES BV v. BARON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TOECA NATIONAL RESOURCES BV v. BARON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV55/2013

Given the factual matrix — including repeated communications and coordinated efforts to pressure Hung, and the reasonable prospect that immediate notice would undermine those efforts — the court held "as soon as practicable" must be read flexibly; service of the notice on 31 July 2009 satisfied the clause and the trial judge's conclusion was within permissible bounds of judgment, so the appeal was dismissed.
3 Dec 2013

WONG PAK SUM v.HONG KONG FURNITURE & DECORATION TRADE ASSOCIATION LTD

Citation

WONG PAK SUM v.HONG KONG FURNITURE & DECORATION TRADE ASSOCIATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2946/2013

The court held that "special business" is distinct from business requiring a special resolution: special business affects notice and proxy form obligations but does not by itself require a three‑quarters majority; absent a statutory or articles‑based requirement, matters are passed by ordinary resolution. The third resolution (letting of property) was not a matter requiring special resolution and was validly passed; the originating summons was dismissed.
17 Apr 2013

CHINA PING AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. TSANG FUNG YIN JOSEPHINE AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA PING AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. TSANG FUNG YIN JOSEPHINE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV179/2012

The cover note's wording expressly incorporated the insurer's usual third‑party motor policy terms into the interim contract; therefore general condition 18(b) and clause 14 formed part of the contract at the time of the accident and any alleged breach is a matter of fact for trial, so summary dismissal under Order 14A was not available.
30 Oct 2012

PONY HK WORLD LTD v. VAND PETRO CHEMICALS (BVI) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PONY HK WORLD LTD v. VAND PETRO CHEMICALS (BVI) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV270/2011

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that clause 6.2A(ii) was properly construed as the parties having agreed that NDRC approval was necessary; Vand breached that covenant and its continuing omission to take prompt steps (manifested by dilatoriness by June 2009) amounted to a triggering event within clause 6.2D(2) within the 30 business day window; the Put Option Notice complied with the bespoke requirements of clauses 6.2C–E and clause 8.3 did not apply; therefore Pony validly exercised the put option and the judgment below was upheld.
30 Nov 2011

PONY HK WORLD LTD v. VAND PETRO CHEMICALS (BVI) CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PONY HK WORLD LTD v. VAND PETRO CHEMICALS (BVI) CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA996/2010

Clause 6.2A(ii) is to be construed as treating NDRC approval as necessary; Vand failed to procure Hans/Dongguan Dongzhou to take all reasonable steps as soon as possible and thereafter omitted to act with promptness such that a continuing omission in June 2009 constituted a triggering event under clause 6.2D(2); Pony validly served the put option notice within 30 business days and the put option was validly exercised, entitling Pony to the stipulated Put Option Price.
6 Apr 2011

NGAI TAT WAH v. ZUNG FU CO LTD

Citation

NGAI TAT WAH v. ZUNG FU CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC468/2010

On the balance of probabilities the judge preferred the employer's evidence that there was no contemporaneous report or evidence of a work-related sprain on 29 May 2008 and that the claimant's symptom recurrence was more likely due to pre-existing degenerative spinal disease; claimant failed to discharge the burden to show the alleged work event more probably caused or materially contributed to his condition, so the claim is dismissed.