Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Termination/repudiation

Legal area

Court

6 Aug 2020

REDLAND PRECAST CONCRETE PRODUCTS (CHINA) LTD v. PERMASTEELISA HONG KONG LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1820
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT35/2018

No binding pre-bid agreement or sub-subcontract existed. The Confidentiality Agreement expressly disclaimed any obligation to enter into a contract and the communications and subsequent conduct were consistent with mutual exploration and the Defendant's tender analysis/due diligence; the Plaintiff failed to prove conduct unequivocally referable only to a contract. Consequently there was no breach; quantum meruit failed because the work was performed as part of tender evaluation and not in performance of or at the Defendant's request in contemplation of a binding contract; estoppel failed for…
3 Jul 2015

KINNEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KINGPIN TRADING LTD

Citation

KINNEX INTERNATIONAL LTD v. KINGPIN TRADING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1546/2012

On the evidence the court found the parties agreed an Open Book Arrangement and Financing Arrangement requiring vouchers before reimbursement; Kingpin did not agree to pay all Purchase Orders within 30 days; Kingpin did not breach its duties to provide sales reports (it chased VanGo and lacked reports); Kingpin made offers to pay Kinnex which were rejected; Kinnex repudiated the Agreement and breached it. Therefore plaintiff's claim was dismissed, defendant's counterclaim allowed, a declaration of breach was made, nominal damages awarded to defendant, and an account of profits ordered.
8 Jun 2011

CHEVALIER (CONSTRUCTION) CO LTD v. TAK CHEONG ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

CHEVALIER (CONSTRUCTION) CO LTD v. TAK CHEONG ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA153/2008

Although the Plaintiff obtained judgment, the court found the Plaintiff had wrongfully terminated the contract and had exaggerated parts of its claim; the Defendant unreasonably rejected the March 2010 offer. Balancing these factors under Order 62 Rule 5, the court awarded the Plaintiff a proportion of its costs: 50% of costs up to 26 March 2010 and 80% thereafter (excluding expert evidence), all to be taxed on District Court scale, disallowed costs for the Plaintiff's expert, awarded costs for the 9 May 2011 hearing to the Plaintiff, and directed assessor's remuneration be paid from sums pai…
6 Mar 2001

KAI NGAI PRINTING & PAPER PRODUCTS CO. LTD. v. KONG KWAN CHUN t/a GRACE PRINTING EQUIPMENT CO.

Citation

KAI NGAI PRINTING & PAPER PRODUCTS CO. LTD. v. KONG KWAN CHUN t/a GRACE PRINTING EQUIPMENT CO.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8576/2000

On the balance of probabilities the court found the plaintiff's on-site representatives accepted the machine and that the written notice of rejection was contrived; therefore termination was ineffective, the deposit was not recoverable and the defendant was entitled to damages for resale loss net of credits; judgment entered for defendant on counterclaim for HK$350,000 plus interest and costs.
18 Jul 2000

SUMMIT LINK LTD v. SUNLINK GROUP (HONG KONG) CO LTD

Citation

SUMMIT LINK LTD v. SUNLINK GROUP (HONG KONG) CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV2/2000

The Court held that a vendor has an implied obligation to show and prove good title within a reasonable time; what is reasonable depends on circumstances and may be short, and the purchaser should normally give notice to make time of the essence if more time is required. Applying those principles the court found Requisition 12(b) satisfactorily answered by production of the manager's letter; Requisition 13 (failure to produce a certified copy of the registered Option) did not entitle the purchaser to refuse completion because the purchaser had not properly insisted or given notice and had lul…
1 Mar 2000

BEST RANK ENGINEERING LTD. v. TAM KAI HING

Citation

BEST RANK ENGINEERING LTD. v. TAM KAI HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11094/1999

The appeal was allowed because the defendant's pleaded defence—relying on an alleged assurance that earlier vacant possession would be procured and asserting condition precedent/collateral contract or misrepresentation—was not so inherently unbelievable or untenable that summary judgment was appropriate; factual issues must be tried.
30 Mar 1998

JI SHAN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. RESOURCES MAIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JI SHAN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD v. RESOURCES MAIN ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV213/1997

Majority held the vendor retained a paramount right and the confirmor's and sub-purchaser's equitable interests remained defeasible because time had ceased to be of the essence after extensions and no effective notice to complete had been served by the vendor before the vendor lawfully terminated; accordingly the sub-purchaser could not enforce specific performance against the vendor and the vendor's appeal was allowed (the vendor's termination of the head contract was upheld as against the confirmor and the sub-purchaser's claim against the vendor was dismissed).
1 Sept 1992

SUNBURY CO LTD v. MAY DESIGN LTD

Citation

SUNBURY CO LTD v. MAY DESIGN LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT10/1990

The Defendant's conduct in withholding interim payments and the solicitor's letter objectively evinced an intention not to be bound so the Defendant's purported termination was not lawful; the Plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of work done at contract rates (HK$399,271.49) plus specified extras (HK$20,060); the alleged oral collateral agreement to reimburse extra costs was rejected for lack of credible evidence; no warranty will be implied that the Defendant would procure performance by the main contractor; the specification is to be construed as requiring legbolts (not simple screw…