Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third‑party indemnity

Legal area

Court

24 Oct 2023

WIN ONE CAPITAL LTD v. HO YUK CHING

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1491
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3127/2021

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals and affirmed the Master's refusal to grant summary judgment because the defendant advanced a believable arguable defence of undue influence and misrepresentation by a third party, there were multiple connected actions and an ongoing police investigation, and triable issues existed (including whether plaintiffs were put on inquiry); accordingly summary judgment or interim judgment for principal was inappropriate and the matters must be tried together with the third‑party claim.
31 Aug 2004

TAIGO LTD v. KWOK KWAI CHUEN SIMON t/a JADE TOP DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO

Citation

TAIGO LTD v. KWOK KWAI CHUEN SIMON t/a JADE TOP DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4296/2003

The Master’s partial final judgment was correct and must be affirmed: there is no admissible evidence that written contracts were superseded by the alleged oral SMM terms; the counterclaim for a future indemnity is speculative and unliquidated and does not give rise to set-off or justify a stay of execution; interest was correctly awarded from invoice dates; factual disputes about delivery cannot be resolved without a trial.
2 Feb 2001

KAI FUNG CONSTRUCTION CO. (a firm) v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MAN WO GARDEN MANSION AND OTHERS

Citation

KAI FUNG CONSTRUCTION CO. (a firm) v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MAN WO GARDEN MANSION AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4726/1997

The contract did not become binding because the parties had expressly conditioned binding effect on further formalities—verification of business registration, receipt of a valid Management Committee resolution authorising appointment and signatures of Treasurer and Vice‑Chairman witnessed by solicitors—which were not satisfied; the plaintiff was put on enquiry and knew the preconditions, and no evidence of damages was led; therefore the plaintiff's claims fail and are dismissed.
29 Jul 1998

CHIU KIN SANG v. CHENG MUK CHUN t/a SUN FAT RESTAURANT and CHENG WING KWOK (3rd party)

Citation

CHIU KIN SANG v. CHENG MUK CHUN t/a SUN FAT RESTAURANT and CHENG WING KWOK (3rd party)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3467/1997

On the balance of probabilities the Defendant's account was more plausible than the Plaintiff's; the Plaintiff failed to prove he advanced the alleged loan and that the cheques were given as repayment; accordingly the Plaintiff's claim was dismissed and the Defendant was entitled to judgment against the 3rd party for HK$280,000 plus interest and to orders for delivery up of the Defendant's cheques and costs to the Defendant.
22 Nov 1990

HANG TUNG TRADING CO v. CHINA BUILD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

HANG TUNG TRADING CO v. CHINA BUILD DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV180/1989

On the balance of probabilities the 156 bales in the Chaiwan godown formed part of the goods delivered by the defendants and those bales did not conform to the contract description; accordingly the defendants are liable to the plaintiffs for damages for breach of warranty and the appeal is allowed with judgment entered for the plaintiffs.
27 Mar 1985

CHEUNG YUK HING v. MAK HOI MING AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG YUK HING v. MAK HOI MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4881/1981

The 2nd defendant was wholly responsible for the accident (negligent overtaking); the presumption of owner liability was rebutted by evidence that the 1st defendant regularly hired out the vehicle and exercised no control, so the 1st defendant is not liable; damages were assessed for each plaintiff as set out; the third party insurer must indemnify the 2nd defendant for awards and costs; costs allocated with the plaintiffs entitled to costs against the 2nd defendant and the 1st defendant entitled to half his costs against the plaintiffs.
27 Mar 1985

CHAN FUNG v. MAK HOI MING AND OTHERS

Citation

CHAN FUNG v. MAK HOI MING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4880/1981

The 2nd defendant (driver) was solely negligent and wholly liable for the accidents; the 1st defendant (owner) was not vicariously liable because the vehicle was regularly hired out and the owner lacked control and interest in operation; the third party insurer must indemnify the 2nd defendant; damages were assessed for each plaintiff as set out and interest and costs were ordered accordingly.
20 Jun 1977

HEIDI LEE YIN FONG AND ANOTHER v. TSANG KWONG HOI AND OTHERS

Citation

HEIDI LEE YIN FONG AND ANOTHER v. TSANG KWONG HOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1621/1975

Liability having been established by interlocutory judgment, the court awarded the 1st plaintiff general damages of HK$25,000 and agreed special damages of HK$29,459 with interest (general at 8% from 10 July 1975; special at 4% from date of accident), and the 2nd plaintiff general damages of HK$40,000 and agreed special damages of HK$31,680 with the same interest treatment; costs to plaintiffs with certificate for counsel; 1st and 2nd third parties ordered to indemnify the defendants to the extent of one-third of the damages assessed.
19 Apr 1969

THE OWNER OF THE S.S. "ILLINOIS" v. THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL "OCEANTRAMP" AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE OWNER OF THE S.S. "ILLINOIS" v. THE OWNER OF THE VESSEL "OCEANTRAMP" AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ4/1965

The court found the OCEAN TRAMP solely liable: the master/owners were negligent for failing to ensure engines were ready, failing to take necessary seamanship steps (prepare/drop anchors, properly manage mooring cables and pay out sufficient chain) and for lack of urgency in assembling vital parts; the DORAR was not negligent (was a 'dead ship' for legitimate repairs and had taken reasonable steps), the ILLINOIS bore no responsibility, and the first defendant's third-party claim against the second defendant was dismissed.