Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and apparent authority

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2018

TSE CHONG SANG v. TSE’S BROTHERS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2401/2012

Court found on balance that no consideration was paid when legal title of Unit 16G passed to Tse’s Brothers on 9 March 1995 and that a resulting trust in equal shares arose in favour of Chong Sang and Tai Wing; the Court also found the Composite Agreement (including the 2nd Agreement and 1st Addendum) and an Oral Agreement carving out Unit 16G had been agreed and/or represented and relied upon, and that proprietary estoppel further precluded Tse’s Brothers from denying Chong Sang’s 50% beneficial interest and occupation rights; accordingly declarations were made, occupancy and mesne profits d…
9 Jul 2018

TSE’S BROTHERS CO LTD v. KINGHALL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1197
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1341/2012

The court found on the evidence that no consideration was paid when Unit 16G was transferred to Tse’s Brothers and that the facts established a resulting trust in favour of Chong Sang and Tai Wing from 9 March 1995; the court further found the Composite Agreement (the 4 Agreements) and an Oral Agreement were in fact accepted by Tai Wing (through conduct and communications) and that the representations and conduct gave rise to proprietary estoppel; consequentially the court declared Tse’s Brothers holds a one half beneficial interest for Chong Sang and granted a declaration of occupation right…
23 Jan 2014

WEALTH METAL FACTORY LTD v. KINGSBRIGHT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN ) CO LTD

Citation

WEALTH METAL FACTORY LTD v. KINGSBRIGHT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN ) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA6/2013

The court found error in the Adjudicator’s approach to the written purchase orders and the effect of the PRC company’s post‑2009 change of ownership and allowed the appeal on Grounds 1–4; because material contested factual and documentary issues (including the accountant evidence and the legal significance of purchase orders and agency) remained unresolved a rehearing before another adjudicator was required to afford D the opportunity to adduce critical evidence.
27 May 2011

YUN CHOI LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LAM WAI MAN

Citation

YUN CHOI LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LAM WAI MAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4893/2009

The court found on the evidence that the cars were sold as a three-car package for $900,000 via an intermediate purchaser Superior, and that the defendant paid the full package price to Mr Mak who had actual or apparent authority to collect; the Notices did not by themselves establish a direct contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the two cars and the plaintiff's claim for unpaid consideration was dismissed; costs were ordered nisi against the plaintiff to the defendant to be taxed if not agreed, subject to 14 days for any challenge.
1 Jun 2009

PAUL Y MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PAUL Y MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA571/2007

The application to adduce further evidence was refused as late and futile; the 1st third party's strike-out application was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's findings and the evidential material made the defendants' case on the master agreement arguable and not plain and obvious; the 2nd third party's strike-out application was dismissed but the Court exercised its discretion to order that issues concerning the 2nd third party be hived off and only proceeded with after resolution of the main action and the third party proceedings involving the 1st third party; consequential directions f…
29 Jan 1999

FERROMIN LTD. v. NITTETSU SHOJI CO. LTD.

Citation

FERROMIN LTD. v. NITTETSU SHOJI CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL41/1998

No good arguable case was established under any relied Order 11 head: the proper law and locus of the CIF contract point to Japanese law and Japan as the place of contract (including on agency/apparent authority evidence), the alleged tort claim (deceit/misrepresentation) did not plausibly convert the contractual description into an actionable deceit causing loss in Hong Kong, and in any event Japan is the appropriate forum conveniens; accordingly leave to serve out and the parasitic Mareva injunction were discharged and costs were ordered against the Plaintiff.
15 Feb 1995

WANG SIAU (or HSIAO) YU v. WU CHO MEI (or MAY) t/a MUI FAR CHUNG RESTAURANT

Citation

WANG SIAU (or HSIAO) YU v. WU CHO MEI (or MAY) t/a MUI FAR CHUNG RESTAURANT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7830/1992

The defendant failed to prove a binding lease, agency or estoppel; the alleged assurances were vague and the witnesses were unreliable. Hearsay in valuation reports could not establish a higher rent. Plaintiff entitled to possession; mesne profits assessed at fair market rent of HK$70,000 per month, of which plaintiff is entitled to seven tenths (HK$49,000 per month) from 1 August 1992 until vacatur; costs to plaintiff.

Hong Kong Case Law

TSE CHONG SANG v. TSE’S BROTHERS CO LTD AND ANOTHER

TSE’S BROTHERS CO LTD v. KINGHALL DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

WEALTH METAL FACTORY LTD v. KINGSBRIGHT TECHNOLOGY (SHENZHEN ) CO LTD

YUN CHOI LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. LAM WAI MAN

PAUL Y MANAGEMENT LTD v. ETERNAL UNITY DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

FERROMIN LTD. v. NITTETSU SHOJI CO. LTD.

WANG SIAU (or HSIAO) YU v. WU CHO MEI (or MAY) t/a MUI FAR CHUNG RESTAURANT