Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency authority

Legal area

Court

30 May 2022

TOP FAITH PROPERTY LTD v. WONG BEN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCA 783
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV438/2021

The Court held that, on an objective assessment, 'saleable area' as represented in context conveyed the area exclusively allocated to the units excluding common areas; Plan A's figures included apportioned floor and building common areas and therefore the Representation that the saleable area was 758.46 m2 was false, entitling the purchaser to rescind and recover the deposit; the defendants failed to show an alternative accepted meaning or that the architect's undisclosed methodology controlled interpretation.
30 Sept 2021

ROSY CLOUD VENTURES LTD v. SUN SHAOFENG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA35/2020

The summons for leave to appeal was dismissed because none of the proposed grounds had a reasonable prospect of success; the judge found that there are triable issues as to the existence of the alleged oral agreement, the possibility of estoppel by convention on the defendant's factual case, and Cho's authority, and that the Receipt is a contemporaneous document lending believability to the defendant's case; conditional leave was not justified and the plaintiff gave no other reason in the interests of justice to permit an appeal.
6 Oct 2020

TRIPLE WINNER LTD v. CHEUNG HAU YEE t/a FARMERS IMPORT AND EXPORT AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKDC 989
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4039/2019

The court upheld the Master's decision: the pleaded facts in the draft Amended Statement of Claim were sufficient to sustain a cause of action against the 1st and 2nd Defendants (in particular to plead actual authority) and the deficiencies argued did not justify striking out; documentary records and licence dates did not establish that the claim was bound to fail on the face of the pleading; therefore the appeal was dismissed.
24 Feb 2014

LAL IMP. EXP. S. A. v. UTANIKO (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

LAL IMP. EXP. S. A. v. UTANIKO (HONG KONG) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1907/2010

Court found on balance that Gary acted as agent with actual authority for the defendant and Lal acted for the plaintiff; a binding oral contract existed between plaintiff and defendant for the goods; defendant accepted payment and failed to deliver, and had been unjustly enriched; defendant liable to repay US$65,040 plus interest and costs.
26 Oct 2012

CHONG YUK POR v. CHAN KAM MUK

Citation

CHONG YUK POR v. CHAN KAM MUK
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3826/2007

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff and predecessors had continuous factual possession and the requisite intention to possess Lot 5 from c.1958/1960s so that by latest 1989 the registered owner's title was extinguished by adverse possession; the 1999 Tenancy Agreement did not revive the owner's title because (a) DW3 lacked proven authority to bind the registered owner, and (b) the Agreement was procured by duress and non est factum and therefore could not constitute a valid written acknowledgement under the Limitation Ordinance.
2 Mar 2011

ISTRIL LTD v. NEVILLE JAMES JENNER WATKINS

Citation

ISTRIL LTD v. NEVILLE JAMES JENNER WATKINS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5084/2009

The Plaintiff failed to prove that Chinachem Agencies Limited signed the 4 July 2008 letter on behalf of the Plaintiff or that there was evidence of authority to bind the Plaintiff; absent such proof there was no provisional tenancy agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed.
19 Aug 2010

ONG AI MOI AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

ONG AI MOI AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHI SHING AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6584/2002

Plaintiffs were entitled to summary possession because they established prima facie legal and equitable title, the 1st Defendant's claim to beneficial ownership was rejected (including reliance on a document found to have indicia of a sham), and the Tenancy Agreement had expired without a timely valid renewal so it did not bar recovery of possession; the counterclaim failed as a matter of law.
16 Mar 2010

GLOBAL METALS LTD v. ASIA COUNTRIES CO. W.L.L.

Citation

GLOBAL METALS LTD v. ASIA COUNTRIES CO. W.L.L.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2614/2008

The court found on the balance of probabilities that Ala had actual authority from the defendant to agree the US$30,000 deduction and to enter the Settlement Agreement as to the 30% price discount; accordingly the defendant breached the Contract by failing to deliver the 2nd shipment, the defendant's counterclaim for non-payment is dismissed, and the plaintiff is entitled to the court-ordered proceeds and damages as assessed.
15 Jan 2010

LAWIN (H.K.) LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF SECTION C OF LOT NO. 154 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICTNO. 19 TAI PO,NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND OTHERS

Citation

LAWIN (H.K.) LTD v. OCCUPIERS OF SECTION C OF LOT NO. 154 IN DEMARCATION DISTRICTNO. 19 TAI PO,NEW TERRITORIES, HONG KONG AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5205/2008

The court upheld the Master's decision and granted unconditional leave to defend because the defendants demonstrated arguable, bona fide defences: part‑performance (payments and possession) can overcome formal defects under section 5 via section 7 CPO, and alleged breach of a non‑alienation/building licence clause does not conclusively deprive Best Star of capacity to contract; late production of the building licence was not admitted absent special grounds but would not necessarily be determinative.
6 Mar 2009

GREAT POWER INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN YIU KAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

GREAT POWER INVESTMENT LTD v. CHAN YIU KAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3773/2007

The court found Mrs Chan made a false representation to the agent before the agreements were signed and knew it to be false; that representation was communicated to and relied upon by Great Power; Mrs Chan acted within scope of authority such that Mr Chan is also liable; the agreements were induced by fraudulent misrepresentation and hence rescinded and the deposit repayable with interest; costs awarded to plaintiff.