Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Storage charges

  • 1 Feb 2018

    TELFORD ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CHINA LUCK (HK) INDUSTRIAL LTD

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 226
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2294/2014

    The court preferred TED's witness Ms Lee as credible and found an oral agreement that storage would be free for two weeks then charged at HK$70 per cargo per day; China Luck breached that agreement by not paying and is liable for storage charges totalling HK$1,116,285; TED's cleaning fee claims were either unproven or unpleaded and therefore dismissed.

  • 15 Apr 2016

    WONG CHOW HOI SZE ELSIE v. CROWN WINE CELLARS LTD

    Citation
    WONG CHOW HOI SZE ELSIE v. CROWN WINE CELLARS LTD
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV262/2015

    Summary judgment was inappropriate because the plaintiff had not pleaded bailment or attornment (so the court could not assume all relevant evidence was before it), there were arguable factual issues on attornment and on whether the defendant validly exercised a lien and was entitled to charge for preservation, and the defendant therefore was rightly granted unconditional leave to defend; the appeal was dismissed with costs.

  • 24 Mar 2016

    SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD

    Citation
    SNE ENGINEERING CO LTD v. CHIM KEE MACHINERY CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2025/2012

    The court held the General Conditions (including the 30‑day payment term) formed part of the MHA, there was no unequivocal waiver by Chim Kee and the Tripartite Rental Arrangement did not vary SNE’s primary payment obligations; accordingly Chim Kee validly exercised its contractual right under Clause 5(b) to terminate on 3 July 2012. Consequently SNE’s principal contract claims failed, the palm‑print overpayment methodology was unreliable and SNE’s post‑termination contractual implied‑term claim could not operate after lawful termination; Chim Kee’s counterclaim for unpaid hire and storage wa…

  • 19 Jun 2014

    LINKS INTERNATIONAL RELOCATIONS LTD t/a LINKS RELOCATIONS v. SWIFT CHRISTOPHER LEE

    Citation
    LINKS INTERNATIONAL RELOCATIONS LTD t/a LINKS RELOCATIONS v. SWIFT CHRISTOPHER LEE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP857/2014

    Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: he had not pleaded termination at the A&O meeting, it was too late to rely on the Quotation rate for storage, the judge did not err in implying terms or applying quantum meruit, the lien finding was supported, and the judge properly exercised discretion on amendment; procedural economy and proportionality reinforced refusal and justified barring an oral reconsideration.

  • 25 Mar 2014

    LINKS INT\'L RELOCATIONS LTD t/a LINKS RELOCATIONS V. SWIFT CHRISTOPHER LEE

    Citation
    LINKS INT\'L RELOCATIONS LTD t/a LINKS RELOCATIONS V. SWIFT CHRISTOPHER LEE
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ817/2012

    Leave to appeal was refused because none of the grounds advanced by the defendant had a realistic prospect of success: the Quotation point was a new point not raised or evidenced at trial and therefore barred on appeal; the judge's approach to measuring storage damages by what a reasonable storage provider would charge (quantum meruit) was appropriate regardless of alleged interpretation of Interfoto; the plaintiff's lien was legally available given the defendant's continued refusal to pay; challenges to trial conduct, amendment and costs lacked merit; accordingly the stay was refused and cos…

  • 22 Oct 2013

    LINKS INTERNATIOINAL RELOCATIONS LTD t/a LINKS RELOCATIONS v. SWIFT CHRISTOPHER LEE

    Citation
    LINKS INTERNATIOINAL RELOCATIONS LTD t/a LINKS RELOCATIONS v. SWIFT CHRISTOPHER LEE
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ817/2012

    Court found that a contract existed; the Quotation incorporated the Standard Conditions; where storage charges were unspecified an implied term entitled the plaintiff to reasonable storage charges as a matter of business efficacy; the plaintiff was entitled to exercise a possessory lien over the wines for unpaid storage and refusal to re-deliver did not amount to failure to mitigate; the free storage period expired on 1 October 2008 and reasonable market storage rates were adopted by reference to specialist provider Vintage leading to storage charges of HK$26,280 plus a handling charge of HK$…

  • 9 Sept 2013

    HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. WAN WOO FROZEN MEAT LTD

    Citation
    HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. WAN WOO FROZEN MEAT LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4533/2011

    There was no sale by sample because there was no discussion or knowledge of unit size at the time of the Second and Third sales, no express term was established, the five-fold test for implying a term failed on the facts, and the survey report was unreliable (mixing goods) and could not establish the size of goods from the First Invoice; therefore Wan Woo wrongfully rejected the goods and Hopeful Meat was entitled to recover the shortfall and storage charges net of allowable deductions; Wan Woo's counterclaim was dismissed.

  • 16 May 2008

    TECH GAIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LA WIN TRADING LTD

    Citation
    TECH GAIN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. LA WIN TRADING LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6361/2006

    The plaintiff wrongfully cancelled the contract. By accepting part of the shipment and negotiating replacements the plaintiff waived deadlines; the defendant was willing to perform. Consequently the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant's counterclaim for storage charges and interest.

  • 23 Jul 2007

    CROWN MOTORS LTD v. LI TAK YIN

    Citation
    CROWN MOTORS LTD v. LI TAK YIN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5427/2006

    On the proved facts that the defendant was the apparent owner and the vehicle was deposited with the plaintiff who notified the owner of storage charges, the plaintiff was entitled to recover storage charges as damages in a bailment context despite absence of a signed repair contract; the recovery was limited to the pleaded amount of HK$93,000.

  • 26 Jul 2006

    HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. TAI PO FROZEN MEAT CO LTD

    Citation
    HOPEFUL MEAT LTD v. TAI PO FROZEN MEAT CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ15918/2000

    Court found defendant unjustified in unilateral deduction for alleged defects and held defendant materially breached Contract SI5000645; plaintiff validly claimed price only for eight invoices issued before the godown ban and payable on a day certain under s.51(2) (total HKD 146,889.15); appropriation under s.20/Rule 5(1) was not proved so s.51(1) did not apply; plaintiff had accepted repudiation and rescinded contracts and failed to mitigate storage losses so storage charges were disallowed; prior summary judgment of HKD 64,399 set off, leaving defendant to pay HKD 82,490.15; defendant's cou…