Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Actual authority

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2022

SIU YAT FUNG ANTHONY t/a ANTHONY SIU & CO v. THE JOINT TRIBUNAL OF THE BAR COUNCIL AND THE LAW SOCIETY

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2199
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1205/2021

The Joint Tribunal's Determination was quashed because it breached public law duties by failing to address all substantial issues falling for serious consideration—notably the allegation of collusion which directly impacted actual and apparent authority and the properness of fees—and by failing to give adequate reasons explaining why those issues were rejected or not considered; remittal to a newly constituted Joint Tribunal was ordered.
30 Nov 2018

DACHENG ENTERPRISE CO v. GLOBAL BIO CHEM TECHNOLOGY GROUP CO LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2556
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2738/2017

The claim must be struck out because the pleaded facts do not establish that Xu had actual or apparent authority to bind the listed company to the 2011 Agreement or the Promised Acts; the transactions were outside the ordinary scope of an executive's authority for a publicly listed company and there is no evidence of board sanction or other corporate approval to support Plaintiff's case, rendering the claim obviously unsustainable.
20 May 2016

K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

Citation

K & L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1061/2011

The strike-out application was dismissed because, on the materials, it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiff's case must fail; the plaintiff's factual matrix (connections, draft agreements, public announcement and banking records showing payments to SIC) could, with cross-examination and inference, support a trial on agency and knowing receipt. Discovery was ordered in part: D2 must disclose filings/submissions to the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau (DICJ) for 1 March 2005 to 11 December 2010 (with wording narrowed), but broad bank-document and other classes were refuse…
5 Jan 2016

RIGHTOP CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. YAU WING YAN JOYCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

RIGHTOP CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER v. YAU WING YAN JOYCE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1209/2015

Plaintiffs, as registered owners, were prima facie entitled to possession; defendants failed to establish a believable principal tenancy or sub-tenancy or that CC had actual or apparent authority to grant such tenancies on plaintiffs' behalf; the documentary anomalies and lack of credible explanation meant no triable issue existed on liability; summary judgment on liability was therefore granted for plaintiffs with mesne profits to be assessed.
2 Jun 2015

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HAMDEN COURT v. MEGA MILES CONSTRUCTION CO LTD

Citation

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF HAMDEN COURT v. MEGA MILES CONSTRUCTION CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT32/2014

The court held the IO's application was within the 30 day period from receipt of notice (received 9 June 2014; application dated 7 July 2014) and dismissed the challenge to the arbitrator's preliminary jurisdictional award because, on de novo review, although the Office Bearers lacked actual authority on the evidence to sign the Contract, they had ostensible/apparent authority to bind the IO; and the arbitration clause is broadly drafted and, on proper construction and applying Kompetenz-Kompetenz and separability, includes disputes as to the existence or binding effect of the Contract. There…
22 Mar 2013

THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA v. LAU YUET WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

THE AGRICULTURAL BANK OF CHINA v. LAU YUET WAH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2804/2000

On the balance of probabilities the 1st defendant was a knowing participant in the fraudulent scheme to misappropriate plaintiff funds via fake L/Cs and is liable to repay the net loss of US$44,605,485.02 with interest as ordered; the 2nd defendant was not proved to be party to the conspiracy and claims against her are dismissed.
20 Sept 2011

CHINA GLOBAL (ASIA) LTD v. SLATE GLOBAL LTD

Citation

CHINA GLOBAL (ASIA) LTD v. SLATE GLOBAL LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD2890/2010

On the balance of probabilities Ms Wang had actual authority to sign the Tenancy Agreement (and Mr Marshall's denials were not credible); accordingly the Respondent was bound as tenant and liable for rent and possession; waiver was not established; the Lands Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the indemnity claim against Ms Wang and the third party proceedings were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
17 Nov 2010

FORTUNE ASSET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FORTUNE ASSET DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FORTUNE ASSET DEVELOPMENT LTD v. FORTUNE ASSET DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA167/2009

Court found on balance of probabilities that Lauw Senior was not suffering from dementia during the material contracting period and preferred Prof. Mak's evidence; even if incapacity had arisen temporarily his directorships were not vacated for permanent unsoundness and, in any event, the companies by conduct and through acquiescence held him out as having authority so he had actual and apparent authority; therefore contracts were valid and damages were awarded to vendors as calculated; indemnity claims were stayed sine die; Midland's counterclaim for agreed damages succeeded.
17 Nov 2010

MULTI STAR INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

MULTI STAR INVESTMENT (GROUP) LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1004/2009

On the balance of probabilities the judge found that Lauw Senior did not suffer dementia during the material period and in any event the companies held him out as authorised so he had both actual and apparent authority; therefore the sale agreements were valid and Vendors entitled to damages; estate agents not liable; Midland's counterclaim for liquidated damages succeeded.
2 Dec 2009

DOLPHIN ADVERTISING LTD v. TRONKEN ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

DOLPHIN ADVERTISING LTD v. TRONKEN ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2409/2006

The court found there was no representation by a person duly authorised by the defendant that Chan King Ming had authority, and no evidence he held a position that would normally confer such authority; accordingly Chan King Ming had neither actual nor apparent authority and the Licence did not bind the defendant, so the plaintiff's claim fails.