Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anticipatory breach

Legal area

Court

20 Mar 2023

CHAN YIN TING v. CHAN CHUN CHOI

Citation

[2023] HKDC 264
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3124/2021

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff established a prima facie case and the defendant failed to particularise or provide credible evidence of illegality or other triable issues; the defendant repudiated the 2020 Agreement allowing the plaintiff to claim the entire outstanding sum subject to an appropriate discount for accelerated receipt; parties to agree and quantify the discount and submit a draft judgment; costs of the appeal ordered nisi against the defendant.
12 Dec 2022

BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3674
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1861/2017

The LOI was a binding contract despite some missing dates because the parties intended to be bound and the LOI furnished a sufficiently workable framework; Clause 10b is confined to breaches under clause 10 (in particular the prohibition in clause 10a against negotiating with third parties) rather than applying to all breaches of the LOI; the court found that by the 31 May 2017 conversation the parties had reached a consensus that compensation would be measured under Clause 10b, but the plaintiff failed to plead or particularise a damages case under Clause 10b at trial and therefore is limite…
8 Sept 2021

WANG SHENG v. SIN YUK LING

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1068
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP760/2020

The court held the PSPA required the vendor to procure discharge of the Company’s obligations under the tripartite Legal Charge; the Draft Release only released the Property and did not discharge the Company’s personal liabilities under the Legal Charge; absence of documentary proof from OCBC left uncertainty as to outstanding secured indebtedness; the vendor’s insistence on the Draft Release demonstrated anticipatory breach of Clauses 5 and 10(e); the purchaser validly terminated and was entitled under Clause 16(b) to return of the deposit and liquidated damages plus interest and costs.
6 Aug 2021

TECHNIC STAR UNIVERSAL LTD v. TINY LOVE LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA192/2014

Technic Star was entitled to judgment for the undisputed contract sums (Lists A and B) and for two ready-to-ship purchase orders (List C). Tiny Love repudiated or unlawfully withheld shipment under several POs (List D) but Technic Star failed to prove quantum for those partially completed items so only nominal damages are awarded. An implied term existed that Tiny Love must place corresponding purchase orders under frame orders (First Part) but not an open implied term obliging Tiny Love to reimburse all claimed losses in the form pleaded (Second Part). The 'zeroing' argument was rejected as…
6 Aug 2021

TECHNIC STAR UNIVERSAL LTD v. DOREL JUVENILE GROUP, INC.

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2284
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA208/2015

The court found Tiny Love Israel had, by stopping or withholding shipments and by purporting to cancel certain purchase orders, committed repudiatory breaches entitling Technic Star to the unpaid contract prices for Lists A, B and C and to damages for outstanding frame order quantities under an implied term obliging Tiny Love to place corresponding purchase orders (first part). The 'zeroing' of pre-2012 positive balances was rejected. List D quantum was insufficiently particularized so only nominal damages awarded. Technic Star was entitled to judgment against Tiny Love USA for delivered prod…
28 May 2021

ATELIER ENGINEERING LTD v. HONG KONG INTERIOR DESIGN & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1526
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3049/2016

The Court held the Plaintiff had not agreed or waived the balance of the deposit and was entitled to judgment for HK$188,425 with interest; the Defendant's counterclaim was insufficiently pleaded and failed except for nominal damages of HK$1,000 because the Plaintiff repudiated by refusing delivery and delivering some goods to Rosy Acme and the Defendant had validly accepted repudiation; agency and frustration arguments failed; costs were apportioned with the Defendant to pay 50% of the Plaintiff's costs (with an order nisi and further directions).
7 Dec 2018

ZHAOQING KIDSTAR FOODS LTD v. UTILITY INDUSTRIAL LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2668
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA136/2017

Master accepted plaintiff's evidence that defendant repudiated the contract, that plaintiff promptly mitigated by contracting with JTL on 3 October 2016 at a market price of US$645/ton, and awarded damages as the difference between US$645 and US$534 for 672 metric tons = US$74,592; interest and costs ordered as specified.
18 Sept 2017

BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS

Citation

BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1861/2017

On the evidence the Letter of Intent was at the latest terminated by the plaintiff's clear acceptance of the defendants' repudiation by letter dated 5 June 2017; consequently there was no subsisting contract capable of specific performance and no serious issue to be tried on that claim, so the interlocutory application for injunctions was dismissed.
9 Aug 2017

YEUNG SHUK MEI v. CHOI SUN MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEUNG SHUK MEI v. CHOI SUN MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2308/2012

Registrar granted leave to serve the supplemental witness statement in part because the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for delay, there was insufficient evidence of abuse of process, the contested material was relevant and probative to factual disputes about contractual performance, and prejudice to defendants was manageable by case management and costs; specific passages that were opinion, expert or contradictory to earlier statements were expunged.
5 Jun 2017

CHAN ALEX AND ANOTHER v. TAKE CARE LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

CHAN ALEX AND ANOTHER v. TAKE CARE LOGISTICS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5024/2013

On the balance of probabilities the PTA was between the plaintiffs and Wong only; the defendant was not a party to the PTA and could not take its benefits; the defendant, by indicating on 3 January 2013 that it would not proceed, repudiated the T/A and the plaintiffs validly accepted that repudiation; the defendant never obtained possession on 1 January 2013; plaintiffs proved wasted agent commission and stamp duty but failed to prove loss of rental income due to their own decisions; consequently plaintiffs awarded damages of HK$7,952.50 and must repay the defendant the balance of monies paid…