Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial performance

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2025

SILVER VALUE GLOBAL LTD v. CHEUNG TAK WAH trading as MING KEE MACHINE ENGINEERING CO

Citation

[2025] HKDC 473
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ659/2019

The court found the invoice was the operative written contract and rejected the alleged oral agreements as not proved; the term '自來' in the invoice was properly interpreted to mean parts to be supplied by the Plaintiff, and reasonable time for performance was suspended until those Plaintiff‑provided parts and contractual payments were furnished; Plaintiff therefore wrongfully terminated the contract and was not entitled to refund of the deposit; Defendant proved costs to complete and was awarded the net balance HK$598,000 plus interest and costs.
2 Jul 2024

TUNG PO DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD v. GREAT BRIGHT ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1086
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4853/2020

Plaintiff failed to prove substantial performance or that the 3rd PAF Work Record was verified by the Defendant; the Court gave no weight to either party's 3rd PAFs absent evidence of site inspection and rejected the Plaintiff's unsupported >99% (or >90%) completion assertions; omission to call Mr Lam permitted adverse inference; the Plaintiff repudiated the contract when its director left the site on 4 January 2020 and effectively abandoned works; compute contractual entitlement upon completion at HK$946,000 less agreed deductions and payments to HK$374,884.10; allow Defendant repudiatory da…
29 Dec 2023

AEROTECH ACOUSTICS LTD v. CHEVALIER (ALUMINIUM ENGINEERING) HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1849
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1937/2017

On construction of the contract the milestone "40% materials on site" required delivery of the entire single contracted lot (277m²) to the Site before payment; delivery of 89% did not amount to substantial performance because the contract required supply and installation of the whole lot and the missing 11% defeated the contract's purpose; plaintiff breached by failing to deliver required T‑shape modifications and the remaining 11% and by failing to install; defendant entitled to recover costs it incurred to alter, complete and install, and judgment entered for defendant on its counterclaim f…
9 Jun 2014

NEW JOY DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) LTD v. THINKING ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

NEW JOY DEVELOPMENT (HONG KONG) LTD v. THINKING ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2876/2013

Summary judgment was refused and unconditional leave to defend granted because Thinking did not demonstrate absence of a triable issue: the encroachment of the internal toilet raised a legitimate triable issue whether it went to the root of title and whether Thinking could effect substantial performance (e.g. by excision) to cure title, and Thinking's initial reply (First Letter) constituted a waiver of strict objection to lateness such that merits of the toilet requisition required trial resolution.
18 Apr 2013

CONTINENTAL ZONE LTD v. MORE GLORY INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

CONTINENTAL ZONE LTD v. MORE GLORY INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP446/2012

Requisition 16 was not sufficiently precise and W&C's 6 December 2011 letter was an unequivocal rescission; regardless, the vendor had an independent duty to give good title on completion and failed to do so because the unauthorised extended shop fronts encroached on public footpath and scavenging lane representing about 10% of net area and thereby the vendor had no title to those parts; substantial performance was not available to cure that defect and the Defendant breached the Agreement by failing to give title, entitling the Plaintiff to return of the deposit and costs.
8 Mar 2011

PROFIT WORLD TRADING LTD v. HO SO YUNG

Citation

PROFIT WORLD TRADING LTD v. HO SO YUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV152/2010

Where the subject matter included an extension erected on common area, the vendor could not convey a good title to that extension; the vendor's obligation to give good title is independent of whether the purchaser raised requisitions, so the vendor's de minimis and waiver arguments fail and the purchaser validly accepted repudiation — appeal dismissed.
24 Feb 2010

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV168/2009

The Court held the plaintiffs had, before completion, complied with the Buildings Department requirement to reinstate the End Wall and the cockloft issue was either removed or the requisition was raised too late; accordingly the plaintiffs were in a position to show and give good title, the defendant had not proved misrepresentation, and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the order for forfeiture of the deposit and the judgment below.
16 Jul 2009

ARTLANE DESIGN CONSULTANTS LTD v. CHAN WEN MEE MAY

Citation

ARTLANE DESIGN CONSULTANTS LTD v. CHAN WEN MEE MAY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT12/2008

The court held that the contractor had achieved substantial performance by the time the defendants occupied the premises and therefore was entitled to the withheld final payment subject to allowable deductions; certain variation claims by the plaintiff were allowed and many items of the defendant's counterclaim were reduced as inflated or unsupported by reliable quantification; retention monies are to be applied for their intended purpose; interest awarded at prime plus 1% from the writ.
30 Jun 2009

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

CHAN CHOI FUNG AND ANOTHER v. HUGE BASE INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1711/2005

The plaintiffs had substantially performed by being ready and willing to assign the Shop with the End Wall reinstated (in compliance with a Buildings Department order arising from the defendant's own complaints) and with the unauthorized Extended Cockloft demolished; the defendant's late requisition on the cockloft was out of time; the as‑is clause and authorities precluded the defendant from insisting on retention of unauthorized works or proving misrepresentation; the defendant wrongfully repudiated the agreement and plaintiffs are entitled to rescind and forfeit the deposit.
1 Feb 2008

SAN FAI CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD v. TSANG, FUSON

Citation

SAN FAI CONSTRUCTION & DECORATION ENGINEERING LTD v. TSANG, FUSON
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3133/2004

Contemporaneous correspondence and conduct established that San Fai had substantially completed the works by early 2003 and the maintenance/payment period commenced then; Tsang failed to prove the alleged defects or their causation and therefore could not withhold payment or succeed in counterclaim; plaintiff entitled to the unpaid balance with interest and costs.