Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Third party claims

  • 11 Dec 2025

    LAI YAU FOON v. WONG TIN CHEUNG AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKDC 1944
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP46/2021

    The court found the 3rd Defendant breached Clause 4 by failing to deliver vacant possession; the defence of total waiver failed for lack of clear and unequivocal representation and inconsistent evidence; Clause 22 need not be finally determined because breach of Clause 4 sufficed; damages were assessed by reference to the difference between the contract price and the amount received under the settlement with the 1st Defendant (HK$450,000); the 3rd and 4th Defendants, having entered the Agreement together, are jointly liable, and the court ordered judgment for the Plaintiff against them accord…

  • 12 Sept 2017

    YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    YEUNG KAM KUEN AND OTHERS v. LIOU JE IANG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1609/2011

    The court held that the completion date was validly varied to 22 June 2011 by the 7 May memorandum read together with solicitors' correspondence; the plaintiffs' correspondence raised timely and substantive requisitions or engaged the defendants' express warranty as to third party rights (clause 24); the defendants failed to show absence of any valid third party claim and therefore failed to show good title; accordingly the defendants repudiated the agreement and plaintiffs were entitled to return of the $400,000 deposit and wasted conveyancing costs.

  • 18 Jun 2010

    LIMBU KRISHNA KUMAR v. NEW CHARM MANAGEMENT LTD

    Citation
    LIMBU KRISHNA KUMAR v. NEW CHARM MANAGEMENT LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI607/2008

    Appeal allowed because there was prima facie evidence of design fault and/or poor workmanship such that expert material testing and analysis were necessary and proportionate to resolve liability issues in the main action and third party proceedings; court ordered a joint expert report and allocated costs against the 1st Third Party for the interlocutory hearing.