Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitors' undertakings

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2013

RICHLY BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

RICHLY BRIGHT INTERNATIONAL LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV247/2012

Summary judgment was properly entered and is affirmed: the losses claimed by Richly Bright flowing from the chain of sub-sales were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties and therefore recoverable; deposits paid may be taken into account in computing net loss even where formal forfeiture was not judicially declared; the 15% deposit was not unreasonably excessive in the commercial context; there was no maintenance or champerty; and completion by solicitors' undertakings was an intended and workable method of giving title.
1 Mar 2006

KEVIN HON v. LEUNG CHEUK YIN DAVID

Citation

KEVIN HON v. LEUNG CHEUK YIN DAVID
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3619/2002

Judge found no actionable misrepresentations: plaintiff did not represent that a 70% mortgage was approved nor promise specific enquiries/receipts from Mr To; defendant repudiated the joint venture by refusing to share completion expenses and plaintiff accepted repudiation; damages for losses flowing from that repudiation are recoverable under ordinary contractual principles (Hadley v Baxendale); counterclaim to rescind dismissed and judgment awarded to plaintiff.
30 Nov 2005

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV50/2005

The court held that RCCs undertaking did not arise because the condition of payment failed when the $2 million cheque was dishonoured on the completion date; LHKs negligence was established and the 28-month loss of rent was a foreseeable consequence of that negligence and therefore recoverable; mitigation and specific deductions relied on by LHK were not pleaded or proved and could not be advanced on appeal; the judges indemnity costs order was within discretionary bounds and would not be disturbed.
17 Dec 2004

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3140/2002

Completion according to the contract did not occur because the payment by cheque/bankers' draft had not been honoured/cleared; Hentron nevertheless affirmed the contract by retaining the transferred funds and therefore must deliver the duly executed assignment and title deeds; L.H. Kwan & Co. were professionally negligent in handling the payment and must indemnify the purchaser if Hentron cannot satisfy the judgment; RCC was justified in not implementing undertakings while payment remained unpaid but is entitled to indemnity from Hentron for losses caused by Hentron's wrongful instructions.
17 Dec 2004

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHUA MING YUEN v. HENTRON INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2930/2002

The court held that payment by cheque had not been 'satisfied' under clause 2 of the Agreement because cheques/banker’s drafts had not cleared; therefore completion had not taken place at 21 June. Hentron initially repudiated but subsequently affirmed the contract by retaining funds without justification and failing to return monies; as a result the purchaser was entitled to specific performance. RCC was justified in not performing undertakings once payment failed; LHK was guilty of professional negligence for leaving key matters to the last moment, failing to take available steps to avoid ch…
1 Aug 2002

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO. LTD. v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

SHUN KAI FINANCE CO. LTD. v. JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4316/2001

The strike out application was dismissed because the amended pleadings disclosed an arguable cause of action: the undertaking approved by defendant's solicitors could evidence a contract; consideration could exist given a genuine dispute as to sums owing; alleged mistake and allegations of knowledge or contribution to it raised factual issues for trial; and statutory set-off did not render the pleaded claims frivolous or an abuse of process.
22 Sept 2000

NEW JADE ENTERPRISES LTD. v. JING YING SHE LTD.

Citation

NEW JADE ENTERPRISES LTD. v. JING YING SHE LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA13764/1997

The court held the vendor had established it could give and show good title; the purchaser's requisitions were not, on the whole, reasonably raised or remained unsatisfied; the purchaser failed to complete and was in breach; the vendor validly terminated under clause 20 and was entitled to forfeit the deposits and to damages (including the agent's commission).
27 Jul 1999

WILSON L. YEUNG & CO. (A FIRM) v. HO & CHAN (A FIRM)

Citation

WILSON L. YEUNG & CO. (A FIRM) v. HO & CHAN (A FIRM)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16167/1998

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because there exist contested factual issues about whether the undertakings were performed, the genuineness of the transactions and the liability of partners, making the dispute unsuitable for summary disposal under Order 14.
29 Nov 1995

UNION EAGLE LIMITED v. GOLDEN ACHIEVEMENT LIMITED

Citation

UNION EAGLE LIMITED v. GOLDEN ACHIEVEMENT LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/1995

By majority the court held that the solicitors' undertakings substituted the vendor's obligation to deliver the assignment but did not extend the contractual 5.00pm completion deadline; the purchaser's messenger was late (about 10 minutes) and the vendor validly rescinded and forfeited the deposit under the contract; no equitable grounds existed to relieve against forfeiture on these facts.
27 Apr 1995

UNION EAGLE LTD. v. GOLDEN ACHIEVEMENT LTD.

Citation

UNION EAGLE LTD. v. GOLDEN ACHIEVEMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7497/1991

The contractual completion time remained 5:00 pm despite the solicitors' undertaking; the purchaser's tender was 10 minutes late; under binding Privy Council authority the vendor validly rescinded and forfeited the purchaser's interest and the 10% deposit; no equitable relief against forfeiture or specific performance was available on these facts.