Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remedies for breach

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2021

SAIF PARTNERS II L.P. AND ANOTHER v. JOE ZHIXIONG ZHOU

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP208/2020

The defendant deliberately read down the clear Account Order, failed to identify and account for prescribed income including carried interest and management fees, did not make a genuine attempt to purge the contempt, acted contumaciously causing prejudice to the Plaintiffs and no mitigating circumstances were established; immediate custodial sentence of two months was necessary and appropriate, with costs on an indemnity basis.
12 Jun 2020

CHAN HON WAH v. TAM CHAK KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1006/2018

The court held that on true construction clause 3 plainly and unambiguously made the plaintiff\'s entitlement to payment dependent on successful completion of the Project and the transaction amount alone, not on satisfaction of a separate promissory condition in clause 2; defendants failed to raise any credible triable issue of non-performance or defective performance, so summary judgment was justified.
16 Dec 2019

香港陸號服務有限公司對 MOK YIN YIN

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2981
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA39/2019

The application for leave was refused because the Tribunal's factual findings—credibility of the claimant's witness, acceptance that materials costing HK$31,500 and inspection work of HK$1,800 were incurred, and that the defendant intended to sign—are dispositive facts not open to being overturned on this leave application under the Ordinance; there is no arguable question of law or jurisdiction sufficient to grant leave and the result would be unchanged even if clause 15 were characterized as a penalty.
29 Feb 2016

MANPOWER SERVICES (HONG KONG) LTD v. YBF GROUP LTD

Citation

MANPOWER SERVICES (HONG KONG) LTD v. YBF GROUP LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3962/2012

Plaintiff's claim dismissed because there is no contractual mechanism to require direct return of Monthly Drawings and Manpower failed to prove the expenses it alleged (internal Profit & Loss statements were unreliable and unsupported); defendant's counterclaim dismissed because Monthly Drawings are not absolute entitlements and must be offset against Service Fee and there was no reliable evidence of Service Fee entitlement or quantifiable loss; both parties unsuccessful and no order as to costs (order nisi).
7 Nov 2013

SIMNEX INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE CONTINUITY COMPANY LTD

Citation

SIMNEX INDUSTRIAL LTD v. THE CONTINUITY COMPANY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2038/2012

The court found a single contract (or contracts so closely connected) and that the Plaintiff had effectively conceded defects in the goods; the Defendant's counterclaim arises from the same contract and may be set off against the Plaintiff's claim; accordingly the Plaintiff's summons is dismissed because it would be inequitable to permit recovery without accounting for the counterclaim.
18 Dec 2012

YANTAI WANHUA POLYURETHANES CO LTD v. PUR PRODUCTS LTD

Citation

YANTAI WANHUA POLYURETHANES CO LTD v. PUR PRODUCTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA930/2011

The court refused the stay and to set aside service because the parties expressly chose Hong Kong law and giving effect to that choice was necessary to uphold their common intention; permitting English proceedings would allow the defendant to obtain mandatory compensation under the Regulations not contemplated by the parties and would frustrate the bargain, and the other factors (witnesses, documents, parties' absence from Hong Kong) were insufficiently strong to displace the choice of law and justify a stay or setting aside of service.
8 May 2012

YU CHIU WOON JACKY trading as EVER GAIN (HK) ENTERPRISE V. RAYTRON (H.K.) CO., LIMITED

Citation

YU CHIU WOON JACKY trading as EVER GAIN (HK) ENTERPRISE V. RAYTRON (H.K.) CO., LIMITED
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4087/2010

Claimant failed to prove the ROMs were defective: no primary evidence (no expert report or AQL report for the disputed deliveries), claimant's evidence found unreliable and inconsistent, and defendant's witnesses credible. Secondary evidence and defendant's internal reports did not establish a manufacturing defect attributable to Raytron. Consequently claimant's claim dismissed and defendant's undisputed counterclaim for HK$288,152 succeeded.
26 May 2011

BOND SPEED LTD v. GOODWELL SAM CHEONG GROCERY CO LTD

Citation

BOND SPEED LTD v. GOODWELL SAM CHEONG GROCERY CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV90/2010

The phrase "direct sale (retail)" was properly construed to mean "retail by direct sale" (i.e. retail via direct selling away from fixed retail outlets); adding (retail) clarified that the plaintiff's exclusivity was limited to retail by direct sale and did not preclude the defendant's wholesale/distribution to existing customers. The judge's factual finding that the plaintiff knew of the defendant's intention to operate a retail outlet (through a director) supported a restrictive construction. Appeal dismissed.
1 Apr 2008

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TANG KWAI SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

TIN SHUI WAI DEVELOPMENT LTD v. TANG KWAI SHING AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ644/2004

Defence and counterclaim struck out because pleadings failed to identify or particularize an enforceable implied term, any actionable misrepresentation, or any contractual basis to refuse completion; defendants were under contractual duty to complete and defendant's pleaded defences did not disclose a reasonable defence; judgment entered for plaintiff for damages to be assessed.
30 Mar 2007

FUJI XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD v. VIGERS HONG KONG LTD

Citation

FUJI XEROX (HONG KONG) LTD v. VIGERS HONG KONG LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV311/2006

The Court of Appeal held the plaintiff was not obliged to accept the defendant's repudiation and was entitled to keep the contracts alive and sue for the contractual sums because the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in doing so, there was no finding it had refused or been unable to perform, and alternatives (repossession and resale) would not have been equally advantageous given the machines were unsellable.