Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency and vicarious liability

Legal area

Court

30 Oct 2025

SUPER TALENT TECHNOLOGY LTD v. REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5178
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1712/2024

On the evidence the court was satisfied all six Forms were filed without any board resolutions and without the Company’s authority and therefore ordered removal of the six specified Forms under s42. Costs were awarded against the 2nd Defendant: indemnity costs for the Originating Summons up to and including Su’s and the 2nd Defendant’s affirmations, and 50% of the hearing costs (including preparation) on an indemnity basis; no order for costs incurred after those affirmations except for the 50% hearing share. The court ordered summary assessment on paper with specified timelines.
28 Feb 2025

DOO SZE YING v. HO YUET SANG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 862
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1876/2021

The claimant (E Finance) proved the advance, the Loan Agreement and the Legal Charge were valid and enforceable and the borrower defaulted; the evidence did not establish fraud, lack of consideration or Company involvement in any scheme, so the Company's claim for possession succeeds while Doo's claims fail except limited monetary recovery against Connie for the Initial Deposit and unpaid stamp duty.
18 Nov 2024

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD (suing on behalf of itself and also in its capacity as the sole shareholder of LONGFORD INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY CO LTD) v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1067
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV341/2022

The Court held that the amended originating summons and Order 52 statement alleging breaches by the defendant 'by her own conduct or that of her agents' gave sufficient notice; on the facts the defendant had entrusted the Leong Seal to Tong and thereby authorized her to operate the account or at least could have foreseen breaches and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent them; foreign (PRC) law need not be pleaded where neither party relied on it and the default rule applied; applying the Hone v Page test the defendant was vicariously liable and contempt was proved beyond reasonable…
26 Jul 2022

HIGH FASHION NEW MEDIA CORPORATION LTD v. LEONG MA LI

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP932/2020

The defendant was guilty of contempt because transfers occurred in breach of the injunction and she authorised, permitted or failed to prevent them through her agent (Tong) who used her legal representative chop; she knew of the injunction and prior contempt ruling, did not take all reasonable steps to prevent breaches, and her defences (impossibility, delay, abuse, HFA undertaking) failed on the evidence.
5 Dec 2019

趙同輝對李寬

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1625
Court

District Court
Case number

DCEC367/2018

The court found the respondent was not the applicant's employer because documentary evidence and credible testimony showed 雅舍 continued to be responsible for the renovation, payments to and dealings with 雅舍 and its representatives continued, the applicant's assertions of abandonment were not credible, and owner participation in directing work did not convert the owner into the employer; burden to prove employment by respondent was not discharged.
22 Dec 2017

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. CHUN HEI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV238/2016

The appeal was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants had breached the undertaking or that compliance with the Disclosure Order was within the defendants' power; company officers' conduct could not be imputed to the shareholder defendants absent evidence of agency or control, and committal was inappropriate where defendants had taken bona fide steps and where compliance was effectively impossible; additionally the plaintiffs' ex parte leave application omitted material correspondence and was misleading.
23 Mar 2016

LI CHO KWAN v. OLIVEIRO LANA AND ANOTHER

Citation

LI CHO KWAN v. OLIVEIRO LANA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA505/2012

HKBA was within the scope of authority to pass vendor information and thus made representations on behalf of the vendor; the Business Profile representations were statements of existing fact and, when false, were actionable; the disclaimer/remark and entire agreement wording did not render those written representations non-actionable nor did they exclude vendor liability; plaintiff actually relied on the representations and was induced to enter the SPA; the representations were false on balance of probabilities; rescission was validly effected by plaintiff and remedies including restitution a…
13 Mar 2008

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAN KWOK WAH, ANDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LTD v. CHAN KWOK WAH, ANDY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1762/2004

There was no real or bona fide defence on the pleaded grounds; documentary evidence and admissions contradicted the non-recourse and estoppel arguments; the bilingual Guarantee and Third Party Acknowledgment and the defendants' shareholdings defeated claims of ignorance, nomination or undue influence; allegations of back-dating and bank liability for agents' fraud were unsubstantiated; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the master’s summary judgment for the principal sum with contractual interest was affirmed and the counterclaim dismissed.
20 Nov 2007

CANDACE GUIDANCE SIGNAGE LTD v. HALITECH TACTILE & SIGNAGE CO LTD

Citation

CANDACE GUIDANCE SIGNAGE LTD v. HALITECH TACTILE & SIGNAGE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA138/2006

The court found on the evidence that the e-mails were sent by the defendant's sales manager on behalf of Halitech, contained false statements, and that the author either knew they were false or was reckless as to their truth, establishing malice and liability for malicious falsehood; damages of HK$10,000 were awarded under s.24. The circular was held to refer to Candace and contained one false statement (incorrect completion date) but was published with honest belief and reasonable grounds and therefore not malicious.
20 Dec 2005

ERICSSON LTD AND ANOTHER v. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES AND OTHERS

Citation

ERICSSON LTD AND ANOTHER v. KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL202/1999

On the balance of probabilities the court found both thefts involved inside involvement by HACTL employees; that finding satisfied Article 25 intent limb enabling plaintiffs to break Article 22 limits; the AWC/Guadalajara do not preclude concurrent common law claims against agents where domestic law creates liability; plaintiffs' writ indorsements were sufficiently broad to stop time under Article 29; KLM (actual carrier) and ASG Sweden (contracting carrier) were liable and may not invoke Article 22 limits for these losses; HACTL must indemnify KLM and ASG Sweden under their contractual arran…