Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Accord and satisfaction

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2022

劉互慈對張永輝（張偉賢之遺產執行人）

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1156
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2990/2020

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success: the defendant misread the earlier judgment, the evidence and affidavits supported the plaintiff's entitlement on the relevant loan items, procedural history did not reveal unfairness, and the legal arguments advanced by the defendant did not establish errors of law or fact warranting leave to appeal.
3 Sept 2020

華利釆有限公司對中銅有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKLdT 35
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPE316/2020

The Tribunal found no sufficient evidence that the landlord or a person with authority unequivocally promised a 50% rent reduction for February and March 2020, and no principal‑emanating representation establishing apparent authority of Mr Chan. The partial payments did not constitute accord and satisfaction and promissory estoppel did not apply because there was no clear, unequivocal promise inducing detrimental reliance. Therefore the landlord's claim for possession and unpaid rent succeeds.
7 May 2020

GLORY SKY FINANCE LTD v. WONG KOON YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 712
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2378/2017

D3 made a false representation that there were no other loans on the property; the Plaintiff relied on that representation when it discharged its prior mortgage and executed the Receipt on Discharge; that accord is therefore voidable for misrepresentation and the Receipt on Discharge must be rescinded and its registration vacated. The Intervener did not rely on the Receipt on Discharge when taking its mortgage and therefore its rights are not destroyed by rescission and do not bar relief.
21 Sept 2017

RE KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD

Citation

RE KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW456/2016

The petition was struck out because the Company demonstrated a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds over the alleged HK$3,000,000 loan — Sum A is more properly characterized as capital contribution, half of Sum B was repaid by Ho, and the SPA and partial performance/part payment by the purchaser subsumed the remaining alleged shareholder loans — thus the petitioner lacked locus and the petition amounted to an abuse of process.
21 Sept 2017

KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD v. TSANG WOON MING

Citation

KING’S GLORY EDUCATIONAL CENTRE LTD v. TSANG WOON MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP95/2017

The petition was struck out as an abuse of process because the Company established a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the existence and quantum of the alleged director's loan: Sum A was more consistent with an agreed capital contribution, half of Sum B was reimbursed by Ho and therefore not Tsang's loan, and the SPA and part performance/part payment by the purchaser provided a viable defence (accord and satisfaction); Tsang's documentary and witness evidence was insufficient to displace the Company's contemporaneous documentary evidence.
16 Dec 2016

FAN KAI MING v. LAM SUSAN SHUI HING

Citation

FAN KAI MING v. LAM SUSAN SHUI HING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2037/2015

The Cancellation Agreement constituted a mutually performed accord and satisfaction that extinguished the Provisional Agreement on its formation; no term making time of the essence for the defendant's payment under clause 2 could be implied; the bounced cheque was a breach of the Cancellation Agreement only and did not amount to repudiation or revive the Provisional Agreement; plaintiff's claims for specific performance and damages in lieu were dismissed.
2 Dec 2016

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS

Citation

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC558/2013

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because the respondent failed to show a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice: the Consent Order did not extinguish the EC claim, s.25 consequences did not apply where the respondent relinquished repayment, the Advance Payment did not constitute accord and satisfaction, and the reference to the cheque payments was permissible within a broad‑brush quantum assessment and did not affect the outcome; costs awarded to the applicant on a nisi basis.
19 Aug 2016

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS

Citation

WU RUFANG v. XIAO YONGRU t/a CHIEN KEE PLASTIC MATERIALS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC558/2013

On the evidence the applicant would very likely have established employment and liability and would likely have recovered statutory compensation of $507,000; the Advance Payment and subsequent Consent Order did not constitute accord and satisfaction; the applicant's failure to notify respondent of the PI settlement did not cause prejudice material to costs and repayment because respondent relinquished any repayment claim and the loss of indemnity resulted from respondent's denial of liability; accordingly the general rule on costs on discontinuance was displaced and the respondent must pay th…
23 Dec 2014

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH

Citation

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV50/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues relied on were fact-specific or academic between the parties, the Court of Appeal correctly found on concurrent findings of fact that there was a valid accord and satisfaction discharging the claim against the bank, the contention that UCP 600 precludes application of domestic law of compromise was not reasonably arguable, and there was no miscarriage of justice arising from the Court of Appeal's handling of pleading issues.
29 Aug 2014

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH

Citation

SWISS SINGAPORE OVERSEAS ENTERPRISES PTE LTD v. CHINA CITIC BANK CORPORATION LTD, XIAMEN BRANCH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2013

The court exercised its discretion under Order 62 rule 5 to vary the costs order nisi by depriving the successful defendant (the Bank) of 40% of its costs below because the Bank had failed on a substantial line of defence (reimbursement authorisation) even though the argument was reasonably advanced; it was inappropriate to order the Bank to pay the plaintiff's costs in full but proportionate reduction was warranted; costs of the appeal remain as ordered; Bank to pay 50% of plaintiff's costs of the variation application.