Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement agreements

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2025

LAU MO CHOI v. LAU MUK FAT (as the Manager of Lau Shau Wo Tso ‘劉壽和祖’)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4748
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1263/2012

There was a prima facie case that a global Settlement Agreement existed and that payments (allegedly HK$21 million) were made and related to items under the Agreement for Sharing Liabilities; the Defendant made no positive case to contradict or to narrow the terms; the judge applied the correct standard and process (including treating appeals from a Master as de novo) and therefore the Summons for leave to appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and was dismissed.
26 Nov 2024

SAN PAK ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD v. CHAN YIK FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3250
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA201/2020

The Court found on the facts that Mr Chan misappropriated substantial company funds and the 3rd Party assisted or participated; D2's non est factum plea failed because he signed carelessly; the parties concluded and performed a binding Settlement Agreement which discharged the disputes in question (including the 5th Withdrawal); the Letter was not actionable as defamatory in context and alternatively was justified by the truth of the misconduct found; accordingly the Plaintiff's claims and the Defendants' counterclaims and third party claim were dismissed and costs ordered to follow the event…
1 Dec 2023

SHERMAN NGAI WING LEE v. LEE HOI WING MICHAEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3056
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2905/2017

The court held the Seagroatt Judgment was not a judgment in rem but nonetheless bound all six sons as privies because they were identified beneficiaries with a direct vested interest; as a result the sons held indefeasible vested interests in the two properties and the father and Sherman could not validly dispose of or vary those interests between themselves. Consequently neither the handwritten Settlement Agreement nor the later Deed of Settlement could lawfully alter those beneficiaries' interests and the plaintiff's claim failed; the counterclaim succeeded to the extent of requiring transf…
11 Feb 2022

DOCK BRIAN v. PACIFIC GOURMET HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 444
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA14/2021

The Tribunal erred in law in concluding it had no jurisdiction because of the existence of the 28/4/2021 document. Monetary claims under Parts VA and VIA fall within the Labour Tribunal's jurisdiction and the Tribunal may determine whether the document defeats the claimant's statutory rights without requiring the claimant to obtain a separate declaratory order from a higher court; the claim is remitted to the Tribunal to decide those issues on the merits.
12 Jan 2022

DEMY ENGINEERING LTD v. SAU SAN TONG MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 31
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4094/2018

The 29.10.2020 fax could not be treated as a valid offer because it was ambiguous and objectively a unilateral mistake as to recipient and terms; the defendant/C&A effectively revoked any supposed offer by the contemporaneous telephone communication which was communicated to the plaintiff through an authorized channel (SWW's general line answered by ST Li); accordingly the 2.11.2020 letter was not an effective acceptance and no binding settlement was formed, so the stay application fails.
26 Nov 2018

CMJF nee T v. MGF

Citation

[2018] HKCA 809
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP134/2018

Leave to appeal was properly refused because the Heads of Agreement did not constitute a full and complete agreement suitable to be made an order: material matters remained unresolved (notably the valuation/division of chattels and required consent summons under clause 7), and the court must apply s.7 MPPO to independently scrutinize any settlement; therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.
8 Sept 2015

SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD

Citation

SHUN HO ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CO LTD v. GOLDEN CROWN INDUSTRIES LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV161/2014

No concluded agreement to renew the tenancies was proved; the correspondence were proposals not a binding settlement; therefore the costs order nisi that the tenant pay the landlords' costs of the appeal stands and the tenant's application to vary the order is dismissed; indemnity costs were refused and costs of the application awarded on a party and party basis to the landlords.
4 Jun 2014

CHAN CHUN SHING v. SILVER WAY ENTERPRISE LTD

Citation

CHAN CHUN SHING v. SILVER WAY ENTERPRISE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC1955/2011

The Settlement Agreement did not purport to remove or reduce the respondent's liability under the ECO and was therefore valid; the applicant's claim was unsustainable and the interlocutory strike out was justified because the applicant abandoned the misrepresentation argument and the settlement exceeded the minimum potential entitlement.
29 Nov 2013

URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY v. AGRILA LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY v. AGRILA LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1582/2002

On construction the Heads of Agreement expressly made the 1st defendant responsible for Acquisition Funds including resumption payments and, read with the Restructuring Agreement and its Memorandum, an implied term (and the commercial matrix) established the 1st defendant's contractual liability; in any event the defendants are estopped by convention from denying liability because they and LDC conducted themselves on the shared assumption that the 1st defendant would pay resumption demands until August 2000; A&I(3) did not discharge resumption liabilities; no collateral/oral settlement existe…
8 May 2013

LO SHING KIN v. SY CHIN MONG STEPHEN

Citation

LO SHING KIN v. SY CHIN MONG STEPHEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV148/2012

The appeal is dismissed: the alleged common mistake defence fails because (1) the specific mutual mistake now advanced was not pleaded and was inconsistent with the defendant's pleaded case and trial conduct; (2) on the judge's factual findings there was a bona fide disputed right which the parties compromised and no mutual mistake that vitiates the settlement; and (3) the Settlement Agreement was supported by consideration and was capable of performance; equitable rescission need not be considered.