Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anticipatory breach/repudiation

Legal area

Court

14 Aug 2017

CHAN ALEX and CHAN ARRON v. TAKE CARE LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

CHAN ALEX and CHAN ARRON v. TAKE CARE LOGISTICS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5024/2013

Defendant failed to demonstrate that any trial findings were plainly wrong or that the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success under s63A(2); the court correctly found the defendant repudiated the tenancy which plaintiffs accepted, s.58(1) did not apply, and there are no grounds to grant a stay of execution; accordingly the application for leave to appeal and stay was dismissed and costs awarded to plaintiffs.
9 Jan 2014

DAVID FRIEDMAN v. SIEGER LTD

Citation

DAVID FRIEDMAN v. SIEGER LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3670/2012

The court held there was no basis to imply terms permitting unilateral termination or to construe Clause 4.1 as making the agreements conditional on reconfirmed measurements or a Notice to Proceed; the plaintiff repudiated the agreements in July 2012 which was accepted by the defendant; defendant proved recoverable loss of HK$643,978 which set off against the HK$898,658 deposit leaving HK$254,680 payable to plaintiff; deposit treated as part payment and no pre-judgment interest awarded.
17 Nov 2004

LAM SHUN KWAN v. CHIEFART INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

LAM SHUN KWAN v. CHIEFART INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9240/1999

On the admissible factual matrix the court preferred the plaintiff's and agents evidence that both parties intended the tenancy to start on 1 February 1999 (or at latest 1 April 1999); the defendants 14 October 1998 position that possession would not be available until October 1999 amounted to repudiation and entitled the plaintiff to damages equal to double the initial deposit under clause 9, the sum being a genuine pre-estimate and not a penalty; claims for stamp duty and late stamping penalty were not recoverable and were dismissed.
26 Apr 2002

Super Mate Ltd. v. Farbo Ltd.

Citation

Super Mate Ltd. v. Farbo Ltd.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2632/2000

Master held for the plaintiff that loss of bargain is HK$2,118,000 based on valuation on 5 January 2000 (market value HK$2,730,000) and after crediting deposits paid (HK$1,454,400) awarded damages of HK$663,600; awarded commercial interest at 2% below prime from writ to judgment and judgment interest thereafter, plus costs of the assessment hearing to the plaintiff.
14 Feb 1984

LINKS FILM (INTERNATIONAL) CO (a firm) v. THE PEARL CITY FILMS LTD

Citation

LINKS FILM (INTERNATIONAL) CO (a firm) v. THE PEARL CITY FILMS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8906/1983

The plaintiff breached Clause 10 by refusing or failing to take delivery up to the agreed deadline (the 27 April 1983) despite the defendant remaining ready, able and willing to perform and having given notice; accordingly the defendant was entitled to the declarations sought and costs, and the plaintiff's claim failed.
19 Sept 1975

TAI HING COTTON MILL LTD v. KAMSING KNITTING FACTORY (A FIRM)

Citation

TAI HING COTTON MILL LTD v. KAMSING KNITTING FACTORY (A FIRM)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/1975

Majority held that where there is no fixed time for delivery and the seller positively refuses/repudiates, s.53(3) permits assessment of damages by reference to the market price at the date of refusal (31 July 1973 here); prior purchases before formal repudiation did not operate to reduce the buyer's claim absent pleaded earlier breach; accordingly judgment for plaintiff for $833,553 substituted for trial judge's figure.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN ALEX and CHAN ARRON v. TAKE CARE LOGISTICS LTD

DAVID FRIEDMAN v. SIEGER LTD

LAM SHUN KWAN v. CHIEFART INVESTMENTS LTD

Super Mate Ltd. v. Farbo Ltd.

LINKS FILM (INTERNATIONAL) CO (a firm) v. THE PEARL CITY FILMS LTD

TAI HING COTTON MILL LTD v. KAMSING KNITTING FACTORY (A FIRM)