Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Acknowledgement

  • 27 Nov 2020

    CHENG MEI LING v. LAM SIU CHOR SHAREN

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2958
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3301/2016

    The court found on the facts that the loans were made by the defendant to the plaintiff personally, the Acknowledgement was valid and binding, and the parties agreed a set-off by which the plaintiff transferred her half interest in the property to the defendant in settlement of the HK$1,000,000 debt; the set-off agreement was supported by consideration in the form of effective discharge of the debt by payment in kind and was not void as past consideration; accordingly the plaintiff's claim for HK$1,000,000 failed, the defendant's counterclaims succeeded for repayment of outstanding loans and…

  • 9 Jan 2009

    LU GUO XIANG v. HONG KONG MING WAH SHIPPING CO LTD

    Citation
    LU GUO XIANG v. HONG KONG MING WAH SHIPPING CO LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCPI254/2006

    The court exercised its discretion under s.30 Limitation Ordinance to disapply s.27 for the common law claim because defendant's conduct, representations and repeated acknowledgements caused equitable prejudice and the balance of prejudice favoured plaintiff; contractual claims under the ITF agreement were not time barred because defendant acknowledged liability and the contractual obligation did not accrue until the plaintiff's disabilities were certified on 17 October 2008; defendant breached its duties (negligence and implied contractual terms) and plaintiff was not contributorily negligen…

  • 4 Jul 2000

    WONG KOON CHUNG PAUL v. CHUNG WAN SUM

    Citation
    WONG KOON CHUNG PAUL v. CHUNG WAN SUM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP712/1999

    Given the evidence of continuous exclusive possession by successors in title since 1973, and the absence of any payment, demand or acknowledgement in respect of the 1905 mortgage, the court declares that the mortgage insofar as it applies to Section A of Lot No. 873 is incapable of subsistence or unenforceable by operation of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347).

  • 6 Nov 1984

    NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA (BANQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA) v. ROGERIO LAM SOU FUNG

    Citation
    NATIONAL BANK OF CANADA (BANQUE NATIONALE DU CANADA) v. ROGERIO LAM SOU FUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV116/1984

    Leave to defend was correctly refused because the appellant had signed an acknowledgement consenting to the disposal (precluding complaint) and the proposed defence — that the mortgagee's alleged delay/refusal caused the loss — was legally untenable and did not disclose a reasonably arguable case; the purchaser's withdrawal (subject to contract) and market factors caused the loss, not any actionable conduct by the Bank.