Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Third party risks

Legal area

Court

7 May 2010

CHINA PANG AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHUI LAU WAH AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA PANG AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHUI LAU WAH AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2447/2009

The insurer was entitled to recover the sums it paid and its own costs because the policy excluded liability for intoxicated driving, the insurer was nonetheless obliged to pay the injured third party under Cap.272, clause 14 of the policy required repayment by the insured/driver, the settlement sums were reasonable on the evidence, and the defendants defaulted so the assessment proceeded in their absence.
8 Feb 2005

THE MING AN INSURANCE CO. (H.K.) LTD v. CHAN MAN DUN & ANOTHER

Citation

THE MING AN INSURANCE CO. (H.K.) LTD v. CHAN MAN DUN & ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2437/2004

The court held that the incorrect chassis number, engine number, seating capacity and false ownership were material particulars that a prudent insurer would regard in underwriting because they go to the validity of vehicle registration and the risk; the plaintiff had no knowledge of the discrepancies and was not negligent in failing to discover them; the plaintiff relied on the representations and was induced to issue the policy; accordingly the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy and obtain declarations under s10(3) of the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance.
22 Jun 2000

HONGKONG & SHANGHAI INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HONG SUN CHUN JOSIAH

Citation

HONGKONG & SHANGHAI INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HONG SUN CHUN JOSIAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1893/2000

The insurer proved that the proposer materially non-disclosed that the T-plate had been lent to unrelated third parties and therefore the vehicle would be outside the proposer's control; evidence established that a prudent insurer would not have accepted the risk (and would not have issued the policy) had full disclosure been made; the insurer satisfied the statutory timing and notice requirements under s.10(3); accordingly the insurer is entitled to a declaration that it may avoid the policy.
10 Jun 1985

TRINITY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. TO YING KOW AND ANOTHER

Citation

TRINITY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. TO YING KOW AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1291/1985

The application for a declaratory judgment was refused because the issue was academic in the absence of any formal claim or asserted right; declaratory relief is discretionary and should not be granted before full argument at trial even if s.10(3) permits declarations in appropriate cases.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHINA PANG AN INSURANCE (HONG KONG) CO LTD v. CHUI LAU WAH AND ANOTHER

THE MING AN INSURANCE CO. (H.K.) LTD v. CHAN MAN DUN & ANOTHER

HONGKONG & SHANGHAI INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. HONG SUN CHUN JOSIAH

TRINITY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v. TO YING KOW AND ANOTHER