Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repudiation and acceptance

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2026

GOLDRISE INVESTMENT LTD v. MAK WAI KWAN ANTONIO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 18
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3650/2025

Application dismissed: plaintiff's pleaded retractions of previously accepted repudiations were legally unarguable (once repudiation accepted it cannot be withdrawn) so claims founded on the original licence agreements failed; the trespass claim was too vague and imprecise as to the subject area and boundaries; consequential damages and dispossession claims could not be finally determined on the pleadings; therefore final judgment in default was refused and the plaintiff must proceed to trial with necessary pleading amendments.
6 Jan 2025

HIGH ROUTE LTD v. WONG CHUNG KAI

Citation

[2025] HKCA 42
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/2024

The Court refused to imply the plaintiff's proposed due diligence and completion terms because the strict necessity test was not met: the PSP already allocated risk and remedies by express terms (clauses 3, 4, 7 and 8 and schedule 2), implying the terms would contradict and rewrite the commercial bargain; the proposed terms were unnecessary for commercial coherence and lacked pleading and temporal/ scope limits; consequently the plaintiff's refusal to complete amounted to repudiation which the defendant validly accepted, entitling forfeiture of deposits.
13 Dec 2024

AU YEUNG, CHEUK NAM v. CHU WA MING

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2075
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2179/2021

Court found the parties made incremental oral agreements resulting in a 15% entitlement (2% then additional 13%), that distribution was understood to be conditional on TVP approval and related auditing, that distribution in May 2021 occurred within a reasonable time and there was no evidentially clear repudiation by the defendant nor earlier acceptance by the plaintiff, and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to refund or restitution; claim dismissed.
28 May 2021

ATELIER ENGINEERING LTD v. HONG KONG INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3049/2016

The Court held the Plaintiff had not agreed or waived the balance of the deposit and was entitled to judgment for HK$188,425 with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim was insufficiently pleaded and failed except for nominal damages of HK$1,000 because the Plaintiff repudiated by refusing delivery and delivering some goods to Rosy Acme and the Defendant had validly accepted repudiation; agency and frustration arguments failed; costs were apportioned with the Defendant to pay 50% of the Plaintiff's costs (with an order nisi and further directions).
22 Jan 2020

PHILIPP DOODT AND OTHERS v. HUANG SHIHU AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 241
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2482/2017

Although the judge found defendants had no arguable defence warranting an O.14 unconditional leave, plaintiffs failed the first limb of the Guo Jing Jing test: on the material before the court the plaintiffs did not establish to the required high standard that they 'would' obtain judgment for substantial damages for the capitalised future commissions claimed. The expert projection lacked a sufficiently reliable evidential foundation in light of the joint venture's financial difficulties and admitted set-offs; therefore the appeal for an interim payment was dismissed.
28 Sept 2017

PRIME VIEW INC. LTD v. ASIAN RICHLY LTD

Citation

PRIME VIEW INC. LTD v. ASIAN RICHLY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1672/2015

The Agreement was divisible; plaintiff was entitled to recover in restitution the overpayment equal to payments made less the value of the defendant's completed works as assessed at HKD 2,042,667.00, yielding a refund of HKD 724,011.03, with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the writ to judgment and thereafter at judgment rate, and costs of the assessment.
1 Nov 2016

TANG CHIN LUEN AND ANOTHER v. COOL WEDDING LTD

Citation

TANG CHIN LUEN AND ANOTHER v. COOL WEDDING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA68/2015

The High Court held the essence of the parties' contract was the provision of professional photography and make-up services at the specified venue, with albums and prints incidental; therefore the contract was for services not goods, the Supply of Services (Implied Terms) Ordinance applied, the defendant repudiated the contract by delivering unacceptably poor photographs, and the application for leave to appeal on a question of law was refused because the defendant's challenge was not arguable.
21 Jul 2016

CHUNG KIN KWONG v. ACCUPOWER LTD

Citation

CHUNG KIN KWONG v. ACCUPOWER LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP26/2015

The defendant repudiated the development agreement by failing to pay the contractual building costs and by procuring loans in the plaintiff's name contrary to the parties' agreed allocation of funding; the plaintiff accepted that repudiation and is entitled to a declaratory judgment to that effect, subject to the limitation that such declaration does not affect title or the rights of the third-party lender.
19 Mar 2015

LUI YUEN SHUN v. MAK CHUI PING

Citation

LUI YUEN SHUN v. MAK CHUI PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA886/2012

The court found the 2nd Agreement was intended to be legally binding; the alleged Cancellation Agreement was unreliable and did not operate to extinguish the contract; the Defendant breached by failing to pay deposits and to complete; the Plaintiff mitigated reasonably; accordingly the Plaintiff is entitled to expectation damages of HK$4.52 million, interest from the date of the writ and costs with certificate for counsel.
5 Feb 2015

SIU KAI MING v. LAU SAI HING

Citation

SIU KAI MING v. LAU SAI HING
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV8/2014

Even if the defendant validly exercised the option and thereby created a binding contract of sale, the defendant's repudiation (11 October 2008) accepted by the plaintiff (22 October 2008) discharged that sale contract and did not extinguish the plaintiff's underlying rights under the original development/assignment agreement; the plaintiff was therefore entitled to specific performance of the original agreement (assignment of the property) and the defendant's appeal was dismissed with costs.