Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repudiation of contract

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2023

YEUNG PO CHEONG 對 TEMPO CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKLdT 70
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1313/2023

The tribunal found the landlord unequivocally manifested an intention not to deliver possession and thereby repudiated the lease; the tenant's conduct (cancelling the deposit cheque and failing to pay rent) amounted to acceptance of that repudiation; therefore the lease was terminated and unenforceable, the landlord could not recover rent or compel specific performance, and the landlord must pay the tenant's costs to be assessed.
27 Feb 2023

HAPPY FISH CO LTD v. TANG JEB MING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1209/2016

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to their costs because the delay issue formed part of necessary background to the single cause of action of repudiation and it was not unreasonable to raise it; consequently the court declined to reduce costs and made the costs order nisi absolute.
4 Nov 2022

BONNY ACE LTD v. KR SPACE (HK) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3301
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA614/2019

Defendant repudiated the lease; plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to mitigate by marketing and re‑letting floors; the claimed heads of loss (lost rent, management/AC charges, rates, agency and legal fees, and plaintiff's share of stamp duty and late‑stamping penalty) were recoverable except speculative future stamp duty; net damages assessed at HKD 150,011,648.81 after deducting the initial deposit; interest and costs awarded.
31 Mar 2022

THAPA BISHNU MAYA v. CHAN SHIU LAM

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 889
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP230/2021

The originating summons was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole asserted ground — that the existence and registration of the District Court writ and water seepage litigation rendered the title bad — was not properly raised: the writ is not a registrable instrument affecting title and counsel ultimately conceded that the litigation did not affect title; accordingly the vendor was not shown to have repudiated or failed to give good title.
3 Jul 2019

IP FONG KENG v. FONG YU SHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1677
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP843/2017

The vendor/defendant failed to answer the requisitions satisfactorily: mere assertions of non-receipt, an unexplained offer of HK$6,000 and lack of evidence as to compliance or the cost of remedial works were inadequate. Consequently the defendant was not entitled to annul the sale on the basis asserted and the purchasers rejection of the vendors responses was justified.
23 Nov 2017

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1609/2011

Because the plaintiffs succeeded on liability but failed on substantial elements of quantum and the defendants' Calderbank offers were not paid into court, the correct exercise of the court's discretion is to order that each party bears their own costs. Interest is awarded at prime plus 1% per annum on the judgment sum from the date of writ (23 August 2011) to date of judgment (12 September 2017) but reduced to 70% of that period to reflect plaintiff delay (approximately depriving interest for about two years); post‑judgment interest runs at the statutory judgment rate until payment.
8 Sept 2017

CHEUNG CHI WAH PATRICK v. HONG KONG CEMENT CO LTD

Citation

CHEUNG CHI WAH PATRICK v. HONG KONG CEMENT CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA18/2016

The tribunal's factual finding that the respondent honestly (albeit erroneously) misunderstood telephone legal advice was not perverse; that honest misunderstanding meant the respondent did not evince an intention to repudiate the employment contract and therefore summary dismissal under s.9 or at common law was not justified; appeal dismissed.
17 Feb 2015

TOP SENSE INDUSTRIES LTD v. FULLY SHARP ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

TOP SENSE INDUSTRIES LTD v. FULLY SHARP ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1361/2012

Clause 7 of the financing agreement imposed an obligation on the defendant to transfer not less than HK$29,000 per month to the plaintiff until full repayment; those payments were in the nature of interest; the defendant breached and wrongfully repudiated the financing agreement by failing to pay and to sell the land; the plaintiff validly accepted repudiation by issuing the writ and is entitled to a declaration of 50% of any surplus over HK$4.5 million as at 2 August 2012 and to HK$2,494,000 plus interest; tender of the principal alone did not discharge the defendant's obligations and the de…
23 May 2012

LAU MUNG LAM v. ICHI STAR LTD formerly known as CARS\' MATE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAU MUNG LAM v. ICHI STAR LTD formerly known as CARS\' MATE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3238/2009

On the facts the cumulative presence of indicia (same premises, fixtures, customer files, partial staff re-employment, servicing of same customers and continuation of business) established a transfer of the business from the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant under the Ordinance; the plaintiff did not validly accept a substitute contract on 13 April 2009, therefore the 2nd defendant is liable as transferee under s3 and plaintiff is entitled to damages equal to the unused value of the prepaid packages (HK$278,969), interest and costs as ordered.
27 Jun 2011

HARKSING INVESTMENT LTD v. TOPLINK HOLDINGS LTD t/a MY PLACE AND OTHERS

Citation

HARKSING INVESTMENT LTD v. TOPLINK HOLDINGS LTD t/a MY PLACE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA219/2008

The guarantor was liable under her written guarantee for the tenant's loss of rent and service charges totalling $2,518,400 because no valid variation or new binding lease to the 3rd defendant was proved and the proposed variation was not pleaded or developed; the landlord failed to prove the claim for repair/damage costs of $1,104,500; interest is payable in accordance with the lease and costs are awarded to the plaintiff at 90% on a common fund basis.