Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Rectification of contract

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2021

ITIRO CORPORATION BVI v. THE OWNER AND/OR DEMISED CHARTERERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL “ANGELIC GLORY”

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1865
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV294/2021

The court held that the plaintiff's evidence satisfied the "well founded" threshold for Claim 1: rectification was justified and the Addendum unenforceable for want of consideration and/or economic duress; awarded US$234,955 with interest and declared the charterparty rectified to permit sugar. Claim 2 (arbitration costs) was not presently well founded absent a costs award and was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore. Defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of the appeal (HK$138,425).
8 Jun 2020

RE HONG KONG AUTOMOBILE LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW288/2019

The court found the 2nd Amendment and MOU, as amended, sufficiently clear to create a binding payment obligation; the Company failed to adduce evidence of a bona fide dispute or of the alleged common mistake necessary for rectification; post‑amendment correspondence and conduct acknowledged the debt; accordingly there was no substantial ground to resist the winding‑up petition and the petition was allowed.
9 Apr 2009

CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE v. TU CHRISTOPHER

Citation

CHAN SZE SZE GABRIELLE v. TU CHRISTOPHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2125/2006

Plaintiff was not a money lender and the loan was enforceable; Clause 3.2 was rectified (deleted) to reflect the parties' true intention; defendant breached the exclusive agency by consigning the paintings to Christies and denying access; judgment entered for plaintiff for HK$3,000,000 with contractual interest and counterclaim dismissed; plaintiff entitled to damages for breach and costs.
1 Aug 2007

GLYNHILL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BELFORD PACIFIC LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GLYNHILL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BELFORD PACIFIC LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2937/2002

The court held that the 9 October 1998 memorandum as varied by subsequent correspondence bound Chau to be personally liable for three-fourths of the loan; the memorandum was rectified to record the correct US dollar allocations and Chau was declared liable to indemnify the 2nd defendant for sums paid under the consent order (US$244,972.79), with interest at half the judgment rate until judgment and at the judgment rate thereafter, and costs to the 2nd defendant.
9 May 2001

JOHN CHIN AH CHAI v. KOFFMAN SECURITIES LTD.

Citation

JOHN CHIN AH CHAI v. KOFFMAN SECURITIES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11835/1999

Defendant failed to prove entitlement to summary dismissal under clause 14 or s9 EO and failed to prove mistake warranting rectification of clause 2; clause 2 is binding, defendant breached notice obligations and Employment Ordinance s8A applies, entitling plaintiff to the contractual remainder salary and statutory notice entitlements; judgment awarded HK$3,223,530.25 plus interest and costs to plaintiff.
1 Apr 1998

HANJIN SHIPPING CO LTD v. GRAND KING SHIPPING LTD

Citation

HANJIN SHIPPING CO LTD v. GRAND KING SHIPPING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL78/1998

The ex parte Mareva injunction was discharged because the plaintiff failed to disclose two material contractual addenda to the court on the ex parte application; those addenda went to the core issue of the identity of the charterer, the plaintiff did not demonstrate a good arguable case on rectification or contract formation, and did not satisfy the court of a real risk of dissipation sufficient to justify Mareva relief inter partes.
13 Nov 1997

CHAN TAN v. TONG HOI, LO

Citation

CHAN TAN v. TONG HOI, LO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/1997

Clause 4 could not reasonably be construed as excluding the vendor's right to specific performance; the appellant failed to prove the necessary common intention for rectification with the required precision and, in any event, any alleged option was exercised after the completion deadline and therefore too late; appeal dismissed.
2 Sept 1983

ASIA TELEVISION LTD v. GOLDEN STAR VIDEO BERHAD

Citation

ASIA TELEVISION LTD v. GOLDEN STAR VIDEO BERHAD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV118/1983

The Court of Appeal refused to disturb the judge's discretion in ordering production: the disputed documents related to matters in question (rectification, waiver and evidence of conduct), the judge did not misapply principle in declining to inspect, and confidentiality concerns did not justify blanket refusal because irrelevant or prejudicial portions could be sealed off by agreement or on application; the order was therefore upheld but varied to permit sealing of irrelevant material and to vary costs relating to the Master’s hearing.
4 Jun 1981

HASSAN SADEE LAI HOP SIU v. CHUNG LAI-CHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HASSAN SADEE LAI HOP SIU v. CHUNG LAI-CHEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ944/1980

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff gave oral permission to sublet in 1971 and had full knowledge and acquiescence in the subsequent sublettings, so the first two statutory grounds fail; although the plaintiff reasonably requires the premises, eviction would be manifestly unjust given the hardship to numerous lawful sub-tenants, and the counterclaim for rectification fails for lack of convincing proof that the written agreements were contrary to the parties' intentions. Therefore the claim and counterclaim are dismissed.
5 Jul 1978

CHAN HING AND OTHERS v. LAI KWONG AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN HING AND OTHERS v. LAI KWONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1343/1977

The court found rectification not proved and that the parties had agreed clause 2(j) remain with an assurance that written consent to sublet would be readily given if sought; the first defendant nonetheless sublet the whole premises without written consent, committing a breach that entitled the plaintiffs to forfeit. The plaintiffs did not have actual knowledge of the subletting amounting to waiver when rent was accepted, so forfeiture was valid; therefore judgment for plaintiffs for possession, forfeiture of the deposit and mesne profits with costs.