Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Agency commission

Legal area

Court

30 Apr 2024

TO YUNG SING HERMAN v. SZETO CHAK MEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1148
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2741/2016

The valuation date for assessing the plaintiff's loss of bargain is the Completion Date (31 May 2016); damages are the market value at that date (HK$57,621,000) less the contract price (HK$50,000,001) totalling HK$7,620,999, with pre-judgment interest at HSBC prime +1% from Completion Date; other claimed heads (increased stamp duty, increased agency commission, costs of Colliers and CBRE reports) are dismissed.
16 Mar 2023

YIP KA YEE v. LEI I SI

Citation

[2023] HKDC 429
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1920/2022

The defendant was obliged under the provisional S&P to show, prove and give good title notwithstanding the absence of a formal S&P; she failed to answer requisitions and to give title, the defence of common mistake failed, the plaintiff validly accepted repudiation, and the plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages equal to the deposit, agent commission under clause 13(a) and assessed costs with interest.
30 Oct 2020

CHINA NATIONAL GEOLOGICAL & MINING (HK) LTD v. TIANJIN HOPETONE CO, LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2780
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1589/2018

The Court held the Defendant did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success on its grounds for leave to appeal: on the available evidence the Plaintiff had a good arguable case that the agreements were valid or that the jurisdiction clause applied (separability and ostensible authority principles), the bribery allegation was bare and unsupported, and there was a serious issue to be tried on the commission claim; accordingly the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.
26 Nov 2019

CENTALINE PROPERTY AGENCY LTD 對 SUNTON LTD 及另一人

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2832
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA31/2019

Leave to appeal was granted only on the narrow ground that the tribunal may have misread crucial witness evidence regarding the timing of payment of the balance deposit (the alleged omission of the word '肯') which went to whether the defendants breached the interim tenancy; all other proposed grounds (including the stamp duty/admissibility complaint and complaints about agent's service quality) were not arguable as legal points and permission was refused; tribunal procedures regarding stamping were proper and its factual conclusions were supported by evidence and legal principle.
9 Aug 2017

WHITE DRAGON LTD v. EVERTIME TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

WHITE DRAGON LTD v. EVERTIME TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD643/2017

Respondent wrongfully repudiated the tenancy by withholding rent and attempting premature surrender; the applicant was not guilty of actionable misrepresentation about timing of renovation; acts of the management office were not attributable to the landlord; keys returned did not operate as surrender; applicant mitigated loss by re-letting and respondent was ordered to pay assessed damages of HK$491,500 and costs of HK$800.
20 Apr 2017

RICACORP PROPERTIES LTD v. CHEUNG WAI LUN

Citation

RICACORP PROPERTIES LTD v. CHEUNG WAI LUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2323/2014

The PASP was valid and binding; the only condition effectively communicated on formation was the price cap (up to HK$4,320,000 mis‑entered as HK$432,000). The agent adequately explained material terms and obtained defendant's assent to further deposit and completion dates by telephone; regulatory sanction was non‑consequential. Therefore the defendant breached the PASP and is liable to pay liquidated damages of HK$86,000; the defendant's counterclaim and alleged afterthought conditions fail.
24 Sept 2012

YAN QING YUAN LTD v. FARLIM GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

YAN QING YUAN LTD v. FARLIM GROUP (CHINA) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA70/2010

The application for joinder was dismissed because it was made too late before a fixed trial date, such that there was insufficient time to serve the foreign proposed defendant and to give him a proper opportunity to prepare, and the court would not move the fixed trial date to accommodate a tactical late application.
30 Mar 2012

IP MING KIN v. WONG SIU LAN

Citation

IP MING KIN v. WONG SIU LAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1236/2010

The court found Wong repudiated the Tenancy Agreement by imposing an alteration restriction not incorporated in the written agreement and preventing delivery of vacant possession; the Compensation Provision was to be construed as double the 12 months' rent and represented a valid liquidated damages clause not a penalty; Ip therefore was entitled to HK$207,600; Wong's counterclaims failed except for nominal damages for wrongful lis pendens registration (HK$100); costs were awarded largely to Ip (95%).
26 Mar 2010

REGENT LAND ASIA LTD v. LEE CHAU HUNG, EVA AND OTHERS

Citation

REGENT LAND ASIA LTD v. LEE CHAU HUNG, EVA AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4460/2007

The court upheld the master's dismissal of the plaintiff's applications because the 1st defendant's answers to the interrogatories were sufficient in disclosing that the 2nd defendant conducted negotiations on her behalf, the contested interrogatories were unnecessary or unmeritorious, some were improperly fashioned or speculative (fishing) and the October summons failed to observe the District Court's leave requirement; accordingly no further answers were ordered and the appeal was dismissed.
24 Nov 2006

HONG KONG PROPERTY SERVICES (AGENCY) LTD. v. CHAN YUEN WA

Citation

HONG KONG PROPERTY SERVICES (AGENCY) LTD. v. CHAN YUEN WA
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1648/2006

The court held the plaintiff was not in the business of making loans because the advance was incidental to its estate agency business, yielded no profit or interest and the plaintiff earned commission from the developer; therefore the plaintiff was not a 'money lender' under the MLO and could recover the balance. The court further found the advance would in any event qualify as an exempted transaction made in the ordinary course of the estate agency business, and exercised the s.23 discretion in the plaintiff's favour as allowing recovery was equitable.