Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pre-contractual representations

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2023

KING VICTORY INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN HON WING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1702/2022

The defendants failed to establish a real or bona fide defence: the alleged pre-contractual representation was unsupported, vague and contradicted by the written loan and supplemental agreements and the parties' conduct; the defendants did not provide necessary particulars and their case lacked credibility. Promissory estoppel was not made out. The MLO defence failed because the loan was connected to the joint venture and the plaintiff was an investment holding company, so the Schedule 1 Part 2 paragraph 5 exemption applied. Summary judgment was therefore properly entered for the plaintiff an…
3 Jun 2021

SUNBROAD HOLDINGS LTD v. A80 PARIS HK LTD ( Formerly known as A80 ANOUFA PARIS HK LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1422
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA735/2020

The court refused summary judgment and granted unconditional leave to defend because the defendants failed to raise triable issues on pre-contractual negotiation and frustration (no credible evidence of acceptance of the conditional 10% concession and the pandemic/unrest did not fundamentally alter the nature of the lease), but there was a triable issue on mitigation/acceptance of repudiation; however the court granted an interim payment of HK$493,893.96 (50% of the principal claimed) as the landlord would likely obtain a substantial judgment and mitigation prospects were affected by the even…
30 Dec 1996

LIEM TJONG SIUN and Others v. LAW CHI HUNG and Another

Citation

LIEM TJONG SIUN and Others v. LAW CHI HUNG and Another
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA516/1996

Clause 9.2 was ambiguous but pre-contractual negotiations showed the defendants warranted that the plaintiffs' share of profits would not be less than $450,000 by 31 December 1995; accordingly the obligation to pay $900,000 arose on breach of that warranty and the clause, being payable irrespective of actual loss, was a penalty and unenforceable.
23 Jun 1993

GRAND SUBJECT INVESTMENT LIMITED v. MABLE ROAD COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

GRAND SUBJECT INVESTMENT LIMITED v. MABLE ROAD COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8357/1991

The offer exchange did not create a binding contract because the offer letter was expressly "without prejudice and subject to contract" and Mable Road did not accept; First Pacific's appointment expressly disallowed making binding commitments without the owner's prior written consent so First Pacific had no authority to bind Mable Road; no warranty of authority was given and no actionable negligent misrepresentation was proved; therefore the plaintiff's claims fail and the action is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

KING VICTORY INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN HON WING AND ANOTHER

SUNBROAD HOLDINGS LTD v. A80 PARIS HK LTD ( Formerly known as A80 ANOUFA PARIS HK LTD) AND ANOTHER

LIEM TJONG SIUN and Others v. LAW CHI HUNG and Another

GRAND SUBJECT INVESTMENT LIMITED v. MABLE ROAD COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER