Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Reimbursement

  • 21 Jun 2017

    MVO MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ASCOT TOWER (VILLAGE ROAD)

    Citation
    MVO MANAGEMENT LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF ASCOT TOWER (VILLAGE ROAD)
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1311/2015

    The judge rejected MVO's primary witnesses as not credible and accepted IO's witnesses; contemporaneous documents (FS251 certificates, maintenance checklists, invoices, meeting minutes) did not reliably show that the four named companies performed the contracted works or that MVO paid them on behalf of the IO; absence of underlying allocation documents and audited accounts meant MVO failed to prove it incurred the asserted expenses; therefore MVO was not entitled to reimbursement and the claim was dismissed.

  • 5 Aug 2016

    HANSON INSURANCE SERVICES LTD v. LO WANG KIT

    Citation
    HANSON INSURANCE SERVICES LTD v. LO WANG KIT
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ809/2015

    The satisfaction note contained a subrogation/assignment clause which vested the insured's rights against third party tortfeasors in the plaintiff; PICC paid an amount which, on the pleaded exchange rate, exceeded the insurer's payment, so the defendant would be unjustly enriched if allowed to retain both sums; the defendant's allegations were bare assertions insufficient to raise triable issues, therefore summary judgment awarding reimbursement of the insurance sum was appropriate.

  • 25 May 2012

    FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD

    Citation
    FALCON INSURANCE CO (HONG KONG) LTD v. FLAGSHIP UNDERWRITING MANAGEMENT LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA312/2010

    The appeal was allowed in part because there existed a triable issue that the defendant had in fact paid the Chin Hsing sum and that the plaintiff's conduct and contemporaneous communications raised an arguable case of ratification; no triable issue arose for the Shun De payment; restitutionary recovery failed for lack of legal compulsion; the defendant's Chin Hsing claim was neither dismissed on limitation grounds on summary judgment because section 23 acknowledgment raised a triable issue; and the Chin Hsing counterclaim is a legally cognizable, liquidated and mutual set-off entitling the d…

  • 23 Nov 2011

    LAI MEI CHUN SWANA v. LAI & SON CO LTD

    Citation
    LAI MEI CHUN SWANA v. LAI & SON CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA401/2009

    The judge rejected the Plaintiff's account as not credible, accepted documentary and witness evidence that the company made loans to Kwan (including EGM resolution and loan agreement of 10 August 2005) and found no oral agreement obliging the Defendant to reimburse the Plaintiff; accordingly the claim was dismissed.

  • 10 Jun 2010

    CHINA NEW ERA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CHINA NEW ERA INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV8/2010

    Article 7(c) requires that the issuing bank reimburse a nominated bank that has honoured or negotiated a complying presentation and forwarded the documents; "negotiation" under UCP 600 does not require that the nominated bank had every final complying document at the moment it advanced funds or paid the beneficiary provided that the documents eventually forwarded to the issuing bank constitute a complying presentation and the issuing bank is precluded from asserting non-compliance under Article 16(f). Therefore the appellant was entitled to reimbursement and the order below was set aside.

  • 13 Mar 2007

    VINCENT ALFONSO v. HONG KONG DRAGON AIRLINES LTD

    Citation
    VINCENT ALFONSO v. HONG KONG DRAGON AIRLINES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCLA33/2006

    The proviso to clause 24a is a reimbursement provision governed by clause 24d(i); given the wording of clause 24 and the background agreement making overseas allowance payable against receipts, the Tribunal erred in treating the proviso as a non-reimbursement entitlement; because the Tribunal also found the claimant did not incur extra costs, the claimant was not entitled to the maximum allowance and the Tribunal's award was set aside.

  • 1 Apr 2004

    NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI SECURITIES LTD

    Citation
    NEW WORLD DEVELOPMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN HUNG KAI SECURITIES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3191/1999

    The court found an enforceable oral agreement from April 1990 (varied in 1991 and June 1992) obliging SHKS to contribute proportionately to land cost, rights issue, expenses and shareholders loans when third party financing was insufficient; implied the NW/IGB financing term into the oral agreement as a matter of business efficacy; rejected SHKS's 'dai chong' limitation and its agency claim; held estoppel principles supported NW's position but primary basis was the oral contract; SHKS's June agreement counterclaim failed; judgment awarded to NW for reimbursement, interest and costs.

  • 6 Jun 1997

    SOCIETE GENERALE v. KORAM BANK

    Citation
    SOCIETE GENERALE v. KORAM BANK
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCL11/1992

    Wide discovery was refused because plaintiff's principal premise (seeking negative inference of defendants' lack of knowledge) was unsupported by the pleadings and had little probative relevance to the primary issue of the plaintiff's own knowledge; limited discovery was granted confined to four defined categories concerning only the six letters of credit in issue, with verification by affidavit, and costs were apportioned.

  • 6 Feb 1979

    GIBB, LIVINGSTON & CO LTD v. BOGI (HONG KONG) LTD

    Citation
    GIBB, LIVINGSTON & CO LTD v. BOGI (HONG KONG) LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA886/1978

    The court held that Clause 1(a) unambiguously authorized the agent to effect purchases made by Kemba Nederland B.V. and that those purchases were therefore made pursuant to and in accordance with the agency agreement, triggering the indemnity in Clause 13; judgment entered for the plaintiff for $75,444.25.