Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Undisclosed principal/agency

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2024

AURUM PACIFIC FINANCE LTD v. T & V INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1798
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA295/2023

No credible evidence of a common intention between the Company and the Plaintiff to create a sham; the Company signed and received the loan and, if acting for an undisclosed principal, is liable; allegations of Plaintiff's knowledge were unsubstantiated; no triable issues were raised that would defeat summary judgment; extension of time to appeal was futile and refused.
27 Aug 2009

FANG GUO QUAN AND ANOTHER v. CHOI MING SANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

FANG GUO QUAN AND ANOTHER v. CHOI MING SANG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI1468/2008

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success: the judge held the underlying order was final (so appeal was in time), but the additional PRC legal opinion and affirmation were not admitted because the applicant failed procedural requirements, the Opinion was irrelevant if Hong Kong law applied, lacked probative particulars on quantum, and there were no exceptional circumstances under Order 32 r 16A(4) to justify late evidence; consequently leave to appeal was refused and costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs.
10 Jan 2008

PROSPEROUS NURSING CENTRE LTD v. CHEUNG YUK YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

PROSPEROUS NURSING CENTRE LTD v. CHEUNG YUK YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3810/2002

The Agreement was illegal and unenforceable because it sought to separate licence holding from operation of the residential care home in contravention of the Ordinance and public policy; the Agreement, by its terms and circumstances, excluded an undisclosed principal claim by Yek Tak so Yek Tak had no standing on the counterclaim; Cheung breached an implied term to notify the Social Welfare Department and to protect the licence; Prosperous was entitled to permanent injunction for trespass and mesne profits of HKD 76,000; counterclaims dismissed and restitution of deposit failed on in pari del…
4 Apr 2006

GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT45/2003

GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
9 May 2005

FIRST GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SHUM KIN AND OTHERS

Citation

FIRST GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SHUM KIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA614/2004

Master was correct to strike out the original deficient pleading because material facts supporting agency and the claim for wrongful registration were not properly pleaded; however the court grants leave to amend because the agency, slander of title and conspiracy claims are arguable, arise from substantially the same facts, and the court should exercise discretion under Order 20 r 5(5) to allow amendments despite limitation; leave to file the 2nd affirmation is granted as relevant evidence.
12 Jul 2001

WANG TAI ENTERPRISE (INTERNATIONAL) DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. TONG PAT LING PATRICK

Citation

WANG TAI ENTERPRISE (INTERNATIONAL) DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. TONG PAT LING PATRICK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9933/1999

The judge accepted that only US$500,000 was paid as the first instalment but on the evidence and credibility findings could not be satisfied that the plaintiff advanced US$100,000 to the defendant on the terms alleged; because the facts on the essential point were inconclusive and parties were unreliable the plaintiff's claim failed and must be dismissed.
18 Jan 1988

ANANAS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TAK AH KNITWEARS & GRAMENT FACTORY LTD

Citation

ANANAS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TAK AH KNITWEARS & GRAMENT FACTORY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7833/1985

Court held Triple Crown acted as agent for Ananas but for Purchase Order A049 the agency was undisclosed at formation so Triple Crown remained liable on that contract; by 30 August 1984 Ananas' identity was disclosed so Triple Crown was not liable for later invoices; many delivery delays were attributable to Ananas' late or defective supply of yarn and to agreed production deferrals so Ananas' claims for air freight largely failed; Tak Ah was liable for defects where court found it produced defective garments (notably part of A049) but Ananas failed to prove causation for several other defect…

Hong Kong Case Law

AURUM PACIFIC FINANCE LTD v. T & V INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

FANG GUO QUAN AND ANOTHER v. CHOI MING SANG AND ANOTHER

PROSPEROUS NURSING CENTRE LTD v. CHEUNG YUK YING AND ANOTHER

GREATWORTH INDUSTRIAL LTD v. SUN FOOK KONG CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

FIRST GOOD INTERNATIONAL LTD v. SHUM KIN AND OTHERS

WANG TAI ENTERPRISE (INTERNATIONAL) DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. TONG PAT LING PATRICK

ANANAS LTD AND ANOTHER v. TAK AH KNITWEARS & GRAMENT FACTORY LTD