Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remoteness of damages

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2025

譚兆尹對香港廉江同鄉會

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1666
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2534/2024

Pleadings disclose arguable causes of action: the claim that the association removed the plaintiff and his office without notice and in breach of the membership contract and natural justice is not plainly unsustainable; issues of contractual duty, foreseeability and remoteness for psychiatric injury and loss of member benefits are matters for trial. Consequently the defendant's strike-out application is dismissed and the defendant is granted 28 days to file a defence.
2 Aug 2024

譚炳瑞對李倩芳

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2001
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA14/2024

Leave to appeal was granted on two limited grounds where the Tribunal's written reasons may be inadequate (failure to explain rejection of the collateral damage claim and the specific finding recorded at paragraph 58). Other factual assessments (averaging repair quotes, 50% depreciation, quantum of general damages) did not disclose arguable legal error and were not granted leave; appellate interference requires irrationality, lack of evidence or misapplication of relevant considerations.
6 Jul 2018

TANG HONG FAR EAST CO LTD v. YIU SAI HOI t/a MODERN ENGINEERING & CONSULTANT CO

Citation

[2018] HKDC 781
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6019/2016

The defendant breached the agreement and failed to render substantially what was contracted for; there was a total failure of consideration entitling refund of the deposit; damages are measured by the cost of obtaining substitute performance and foreseeable consequential losses; the plaintiff proved entitlement to refund of deposit and additional costs to engage Sino Sky and to recover extra rent/rates/management, but failed to prove renovation variation charges due to missing corroborating documents and absence of proof of payment.
29 Jun 2018

TSE CHI SHING v. TANG WING HONG ANDREW AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1846/2015

Defendant breached the duty to advise a purchaser adequately about the non-transferable personal nature of the government land licence and the substantial risk of enforcement by government; plaintiff relied on defendant's advice and would not have proceeded; recoverable loss limited by contractual remoteness and mitigation principles and reduced to proved renovation and related sums totalling HK$1,287,050 plus interest and costs nisi.
1 Nov 2017

MULTIPLE SURVEYORS LTD v. MULTIPLE SURVEYORS & CONSULTANTS LTD

Citation

MULTIPLE SURVEYORS LTD v. MULTIPLE SURVEYORS & CONSULTANTS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1596/2015

The court held the plaintiff breached the retainer contracts by making the admitted omissions and by failing to mark electricity sub‑stations (transformer rooms) which fall within the plain meaning and purpose of section 6(4)(t) of Schedule 1 to the RPO; breaches were not repudiatory and did not forfeit the entire contractual price; under remoteness and assumption‑of‑responsibility principles the defendant was entitled to recover foreseeable remedial costs for re‑checking and rectifying the location plans, assessed at HK$410,250; plaintiff entitled to the remaining contractual sums for other…
5 Mar 2013

MEGA YIELD INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. FONFAIR CO LTD

Citation

MEGA YIELD INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD v. FONFAIR CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA948/2009

Defendant repudiated the Lease by failing to deliver vacant possession; there was no implied contractual obligation on the plaintiff to procure the Waiver by a fixed earlier date and the defendant could not shift responsibility for failing to recover possession to the plaintiff; plaintiff did not fail to mitigate; Aberdeen lease was not a true substitute and The Achilleas principle excludes liability for the disproportionate replacement cost the plaintiff sought; plaintiff entitled to recover wasted reliance expenditure and certain mitigation costs; total damages awarded HK$7,463,708.60 with…
7 Jan 2013

TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WONG WING

Citation

TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER v. WONG WING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2470/2012

The trial judge's primary fact-finding that no agreement was made not to exercise the Break Clause was not plainly wrong given the evidence; the defendant accepted in cross-examination that a landlord could sell with vacant possession and that litigation by purchasers could follow, so the plaintiffs' loss was within the defendant's reasonable contemplation and not too remote; the deposit was properly forfeited under the tenancy clause; therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused.
24 Dec 2012

CHU WING LEE v. LI CHUI HEUNG

Citation

CHU WING LEE v. LI CHUI HEUNG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1174/2010

The court found the third party was not liable: the licence transfer was a condition to be performed after full payment, full payment occurred only in mid‑October 2009, the third party executed the transfer within a reasonable time thereafter, the defendant failed to take required steps under FEHD procedure and the loss claimed was too remote and not within the parties' contemplation; hence the defendant's claim against the third party is dismissed.
5 Jul 2010

CHIU CHIT v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHIU CHIT v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2334/2009

The court held there was no breach of contract because the bank transmitted according to the plaintiff's instructions; the bank was negligent for failing to query contradictory information but the plaintiff's incorrect details were the predominant cause (70% fault), the trading losses were too remote and not recoverable, and the plaintiff's out of time leave applications lacked reasonable prospects and were dismissed with costs.
27 Jan 2010

CHIU CHIT v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

CHIU CHIT v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4041/2007

The claimed trading losses and loss of future profits were too remote because the bank lacked knowledge of the special purpose (high‑risk margin trading) and such losses were not within the reasonable contemplation of the parties; the bank's duty did not extend to protecting against speculative margin trading losses; contractually excluded indirect and consequential losses; accordingly plaintiff's primary damages claim and failed remittance charge were dismissed and only nominal interest was awarded subject to plaintiff's contributory responsibility.