Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Quantum of loss

Legal area

Court

29 Apr 2026

MAIHI LTD v. WO PING INDUSTRIAL PARK LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2507
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA15/2026

The 1st Defendant’s application for leave failed the statutory requirement to specify grounds of appeal and reasons under s.28(2)(a); its grounds merely recast factual conclusions and did not identify legal errors; factual findings of the Adjudicator were open to her and not susceptible to review on a law-only appeal absent perversity or no evidence; accordingly leave to appeal was refused and the application dismissed with no order as to costs.
3 Nov 2021

RE ASK RE LTD (Company Number 1056098)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3310
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW445/2020

The Company failed to establish any bona fide defence on substantial grounds or to show that the Petitioner assumed advisory duties; the asserted cross‑claim was not substantiated and the alleged loss did not exceed the petition debt; accordingly the winding up petition succeeded and the court made the normal winding up order.
29 Dec 2017

LIMING CAPITAL LTD v. CLSA LTD

Citation

LIMING CAPITAL LTD v. CLSA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2055/2008

Leave to re-amend was granted because the proposed amendments did not alter the substance of the plaintiff's cause of action but concerned the method of calculating quantum (a question of contractual construction), the amendments could be read in context, and the defendant would not suffer irreparable prejudice as consequential amendments were permitted.
30 Aug 2012

WONG SIU MING JASON v. CHUNG MAN WAI REBECCA

Citation

WONG SIU MING JASON v. CHUNG MAN WAI REBECCA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA64/2010

The court found the defendant acted on instructions to sell the four properties rather than to effect a temporary transfer with a right of first purchase; the plaintiff's testimony was inherently implausible, lacked corroborative contemporaneous evidence, and was inconsistent with earlier documents, therefore the plaintiff failed to prove breach or causation and the claim was dismissed.
27 Jul 2009

TOTAL MARKET LTD v. CROSBY WEALTH MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

TOTAL MARKET LTD v. CROSBY WEALTH MANAGEMENT (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2168/2008

The court found expert evidence necessary for the quantum calculation given the complexity of the accounting and statements; all Issues A–H as identified may be put to the expert; the court directed appointment of a single joint expert in accounting, set timelines for agreement of the expert, instruction exchange and delivery of the report, and made costs directions including initial equal sharing of production costs and an order nisi on costs of the first hearing.
20 Jun 2007

THAKRAL CORPORATION (HK) LTD v. IRIVER HONG KONG LTD

Citation

THAKRAL CORPORATION (HK) LTD v. IRIVER HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2635/2004

There was no express or implied non-compete term; the November 2003 letters constituted a commitment binding the parties until 31 July 2004; iRiver's termination in February 2004 was a breach of that commitment; recoverable loss is limited to the profit on stock that had to be returned and proven promotion costs, whereas claimed future profits to 31 July 2004 were too speculative to award.
17 Jan 2003

HONG KONG NYLON ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS v. QBE INSURANCE (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

HONG KONG NYLON ENTERPRISES LTD. AND OTHERS v. QBE INSURANCE (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL46/1999

The court found on the facts that the insurer had been informed the machine was exhibition machinery (so non-disclosure defence failed); any breach of the container-load warranty occurred by exercise of carrier liberties and fell within the scope of Clause 8.3 ICC(A) so the insurance remained in force; Hong Kong Nylon retained an insurable interest at the time of loss; plaintiffs were entitled to recover repair costs and diminution in resale value subject to disallowance of an unexplained reserve fund item. Accordingly judgment was entered for the 1st plaintiff against the defendant for US$81…
28 Jun 1984

TING CHUNG HO t/a DAR LEE SILK CO v. TAI NAN TEXTILE LTD

Citation

TING CHUNG HO t/a DAR LEE SILK CO v. TAI NAN TEXTILE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA457/1983

Court found plaintiff entitled to unpaid balance of $43,833.50; goods were defective but defendant inspected and accepted dyeing on 5 October 1982 thereby waiving the right to reject; defendant established replacement silk of about 1,000 yards costing $26,000 and dyeing charges totaling $1,700 (total $27,700); vague and unproven heads of additional loss were not awarded; interest ordered at 14% from 1 November 1982 to judgment; costs allocated to plaintiff on the claim and to defendant on the counterclaim.
11 Jun 1984

TEXWEAR GARMENTS LTD v. LAI NGAN t/a LACO GARMENT CO

Citation

TEXWEAR GARMENTS LTD v. LAI NGAN t/a LACO GARMENT CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9799/1982

The defendant breached the C.M.T. contracts by supplying garments below the contractual and commercially acceptable standard as established by the S.G.S. inspection and witness evidence; damages are assessed as lost profit (sale-on price minus manufacturing cost) using the HKD/USD exchange rate prevailing on the date performance was due for each contract; plaintiff is entitled to recover the cost of trimmings, interest from the respective dates of breach at 12% for pre-judgment interest, and interest at the court rate from judgment, together with costs; counterclaim dismissed.