Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and principal liability

Legal area

Court

19 Jan 2017

WALIYAH v. YIP HOI SUN TERENCE AND ANOTHER

Citation

WALIYAH v. YIP HOI SUN TERENCE AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEO1/2015

Judge found as fact that R2 acted as R1's agent in supervising and directing the domestic helper; R2 committed sex discrimination by asking the claimant to urinate into a potty for a pregnancy test and R1 is vicariously liable under SDO; R1 personally committed pregnancy discrimination by making the claimant sign a termination notice and by requiring her to leave before notice expiry, amounting to breach of implied trust and confidence, breach of Employment Ordinance pregnancy protections and unlawful dismissal; R2 was not liable for the dismissal as there was insufficient proof she induced o…
27 Oct 2009

GOEI TSUSHO CO LTD v. LEADER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOEI TSUSHO CO LTD v. LEADER ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4581/2005

On the facts the court concluded that Leader Engineering, by its documents, conduct and representations (shared office/address changes, fax imprint, business cards, correspondence signed or sent from Leader Engineering offices and involvement of Leader Engineering personnel), had created apparent authority for Anco‑Tech to contract on its behalf; Leader Engineering was therefore a disclosed principal and jointly and severally liable for the debt. The prior default judgment against Anco‑Tech did not constitute an irrevocable election barring the Plaintiff's claim against Leader Engineering giv…
18 Mar 2008

FONG CHUNG MAU v. WONG CHUNG TAK RICHARD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FONG CHUNG MAU v. WONG CHUNG TAK RICHARD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1096/2005

The plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that an oral agreement existed or that the HK$4,400,000 was paid pursuant to such an agreement; contemporaneous ledger entries, vouchers and witnesses supported the defendants' repayment explanation and the credible evidence favored the defendants, therefore the plaintiff's claim for money had and received must be dismissed.
28 Oct 2004

KWOK HONG PING v. CHAN MAN SHOUE

Citation

KWOK HONG PING v. CHAN MAN SHOUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3858/2002

The judge preferred the plaintiff's evidence over the defendant's on credibility grounds, found that the defendant had agreed to be treated as the contracting party and therefore personally liable for the loss, rejected the defendant's duress/intimidation defence and counterclaim, and awarded the plaintiff judgment for the unpaid balance with interest and costs.
28 Aug 2003

LEE THAI LAI v. WONG CHUNG KAI t/a KAI HING TRADING CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE THAI LAI v. WONG CHUNG KAI t/a KAI HING TRADING CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA64/2003

Leave to appeal was granted because there are arguable grounds that the Labour Tribunal may have erred in (1) lifting the corporate veil to hold the 1st Defendant liable, (2) finding that the 2nd Defendant was merely an agent of the 1st Defendant while also finding the 2nd Defendant to be the employer, and (3) holding both defendants jointly and severally liable without stating the legal basis; the grant of leave is limited to those grounds.
15 Jan 2002

HING KWOK INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. CHAN YUK MUI t/a CHEUNG SHING HONG FASHION TRADING CO.

Citation

HING KWOK INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. v. CHAN YUK MUI t/a CHEUNG SHING HONG FASHION TRADING CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA12429/1999

The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant agreed to be the purchaser or was the principal for Mr Chow; the contemporaneous documents were consistent with a device whereby Mr Chow ordered and paid for goods delivered to the defendant's premises for onward removal, and there was insufficient affirmative evidence of authority or agreement by the defendant to render her liable for the price. Therefore the claim for the balance fails.
8 May 1995

HANIN GARMENT MANUFACTORY LTD. v. LAU CHUN FAI and Others

Citation

HANIN GARMENT MANUFACTORY LTD. v. LAU CHUN FAI and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA128/1994

On the undisputed primary facts — work performed on the Company’s premises on Company garments, Company payments into Yeung's account including amounts for severance and holiday pay, Company-paid employees' compensation premiums and Company instructions to retain staff — the Claimants were employed by the Company; statutory deeming provisions in the Employment Ordinance (s.5(1) and s.6(2)(a)) require one month's notice overriding industry practice; Deputy Judge Wong lacked power to grant ex parte leave to cross-appeal and that order is set aside; the Claimants' cross-appeal is to be adjourned…
6 Mar 1991

REFCO INC v. TROIKA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

REFCO INC v. TROIKA INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV63/1990

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that Refco and Tai Fook reached an agreement in early 1983 (supported by uncontradicted testimony of Meyers and documentary conduct) whereby Tai Fook accepted primary liability for cleared trades; the late amendments to the pleadings were properly allowed and the computer records and disclosure sufficiently proved the quantum of loss, therefore the appeal by Tai Fook is dismissed.
6 Oct 1987

DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS AND OTHERS v. GLADHOVER LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS AND OTHERS v. GLADHOVER LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV119/1987

The 1985 agreement, read objectively and in context, consistently and unambiguously qualified Gladhover's role by the words 'for and on behalf of' NOZESCO, which negatives Gladhover's personal liability; therefore Gladhover was not a contracting party in privity with the Contractors and the order setting aside service for want of jurisdiction was correct and must be upheld.
6 Jul 1982

VIROTEX LTD v. CHAN KING YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

VIROTEX LTD v. CHAN KING YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1540/1981

The cheque was enforceable because the 1 October share-sale document did not supersede the prior letter of indemnity; evidence established claims by foreign buyers and reasonable settlement; illegality of the underlying sales was not proved; Clause 10B created an absolute obligation on the 1st defendant to procure transfer of the 1981 Category 5 quota and the 1st defendant, by his control and conduct, bound Becopa; defendants are therefore liable and plaintiff is entitled to monetary judgment and damages in lieu of transfer.