Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Parol evidence

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2021

MASTER GLORY LTD 對江潔雯

Citation

[2021] HKDC 275
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4603/2016

Court found no binding oral promise by landlord; the parties amended the lease by adding notes 5 and 6 which allocated responsibility (extended rent‑free period and left removal/alterations to tenant); tenant breached the lease by failing to pay rent and is liable for arrears and mesne profits; tenant's counterclaims lack factual and evidential basis and are dismissed; plaintiff awarded calculated net sum of HKD 237,010 plus interest and costs.
4 Sept 2019

CANTAB INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS v. LUK NGAI LING IRENE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 1002
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV232/2016

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge failed to make reasoned findings on whether the written Agreement was entire or supplemented by binding oral terms and on whether the sale was of a going concern; because those fundamental factual and legal issues were not adequately resolved, the trial judgment could not stand and must be set aside and the case remitted for retrial before another judge.
30 Aug 2016

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC AND ANOTHER v.. X Company

Citation

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC AND ANOTHER v.. X Company
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT60/2015

Plaintiffs failed to prove that the Majority of the Tribunal consciously disregarded the parties' chosen New York law; the Award shows the Majority considered and sought to apply relevant New York authorities and, even if wrong in law, such errors do not amount to unauthorized amiable composition or excess of mandate warranting setting aside; therefore the application to set aside the Award is dismissed and costs are awarded to the Defendant on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel.
10 Jun 2016

謝松發 v. 蕭天財所經營之協成汽車修理公司

Citation

謝松發 v. 蕭天財所經營之協成汽車修理公司
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1166/2013

On the evidence the cheques were issued as conditional deposits to be used only after the defendant obtained compensation; the dates on the cheques were materially altered without the drawer's consent and the plaintiff failed to prove authorized alteration, therefore the material alterations invalidated the cheques and the plaintiff's claim fails.
26 Mar 2013

CATHERWOOD LTD v. FENG JIN LIANG

Citation

CATHERWOOD LTD v. FENG JIN LIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1651/2011

Contemporaneous documentary evidence (e‑mails and multiple negotiated drafts) demonstrated the terms were negotiated and contradicted the alleged oral agreements, making those oral agreements unbelievable; therefore no triable issues existed and summary judgment was appropriate for the unpaid loan.
26 Nov 2010

LU MING HUI v. HO YU KUEN

Citation

LU MING HUI v. HO YU KUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV121/2010

The court held that the promissory note and sale agreement were genuine and enforceable; the defendant's defences that the documents were sham or that the claim was discharged were contradicted by contemporaneous documents and were inherently unbelievable; accordingly summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.
8 Jun 2010

HAYMARKET MEDIA LTD v. CHINA KNOWLEDGE PRESS PTE LTD

Citation

HAYMARKET MEDIA LTD v. CHINA KNOWLEDGE PRESS PTE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2115/2008

The judge preferred and accepted the plaintiff's witness evidence and rejected the defendant's evidence as evasive and inconsistent; there was no compelling evidence that the alleged promises were made, so the defendant's defence of misrepresentation or collateral contract failed and judgment was entered for the plaintiff.
30 Dec 2009

WEI JIYANG v. TEO KUNG KIN AND OTHERS

Citation

WEI JIYANG v. TEO KUNG KIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA146/2009

Defendants’ oral and vague assertions were contradicted by contemporaneous written documentation and lacked particularisation; therefore there was no real triable issue and summary judgment was appropriate. The Loan Agreement is enforceable and supports judgment for RMB 3.28 million against Teo and Lau; the Share Transfer Agreement is enforceable and Teo must transfer his Daat HK share as contracted.
18 Feb 2008

SUNBO CONTRACTS LTD v. LI YIM CHIU t/a CHIEF WAI ENGINEERING CO

Citation

SUNBO CONTRACTS LTD v. LI YIM CHIU t/a CHIEF WAI ENGINEERING CO
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2520/2006

The court found no proved collateral term requiring CA117 compliance or certificates, concluded the evidence did not establish that the fabrics were defective or unmerchantable, accepted that a one-off HK$80,000 commission deduction applied to the first contract only, awarded Sunbo the remaining balance of HK$141,500 with interest, dismissed Chief Wai's counterclaim and granted costs to Sunbo on the stated terms.
20 Jun 2007

KO SHA LAM v. KEI FONG

Citation

KO SHA LAM v. KEI FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3971/2000

On the balance of evidence the court found Chan alone provided the purchase funds, and evidence (including financial records, the loan from Chan's brother, mortgage repayments, the deed of separation and consent order) rebutted the presumption of advancement; accordingly the Defendant held any legal title on resulting trust for Chan and had no beneficial interest chargeable to satisfy the Plaintiff's judgment, so the charging order nisi was discharged and the application for charging order absolute dismissed.