Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assessment date for damages

Legal area

Court

14 May 2020

QIANHAI XINHUAKANG FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (SHENZHEN) LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 823
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA377/2018

The court exercised its wide discretion under O 18 r 9/O 20 r 5 to allow the re‑amendments because they are defensive, closely connected to the original claims, not introducing incurably new stand‑alone causes of action, and are not shown to be bound to fail on the material before the court; consequently the parallel 2019 action was stayed and costs directions made.
27 Jan 2015

HUGE TREASURE LTD v. JADESPRING LTD

Citation

HUGE TREASURE LTD v. JADESPRING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1875/2011

Registrar dismissed the defendant's application to amend the defence and counterclaim and dismissed the applications for a supplemental witness statement and a supplemental joint expert report because the defendant had no proper factual or legal basis to expand its pleaded case, expert reports cannot substitute for pleadings, the evidence already before the Court was sufficient for assessment at the date of breach absent demonstrated exceptional circumstances, and the defendant failed to show the proposed further evidence was necessary or proportionate.
27 Apr 2009

CHOY NGA WAI NANCY v. GENTLE SMART LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHOY NGA WAI NANCY v. GENTLE SMART LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4895/2007

Plaintiff was not entitled to assess damages at date of judgment because she did not act reasonably to preserve or obtain specific performance; however the 1st Defendant breached equitable duties and a forced mortgagee sale realised a net gain which equity permits to be partially disgorged, so a Wrotham Park style remedy was appropriate in the circumstances and damages were fixed at HKD 260000 plus interest, with return of deposits and specified interest, and no separate award for wasted conveyancing costs.
30 Jul 2007

UBS SECURITIES ASIA LTD v. MULTEC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

UBS SECURITIES ASIA LTD v. MULTEC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA672/2007

The defendant had no credible triable defence on liability or quantum: contemporaneous communications established the defendant knew the shares were sold and was obliged to deliver; there was no unequivocal repudiation until defendant failed to deliver after the demand, fixing the breach date as 5 January 2007; the plaintiff acted reasonably in buying-in shares and mitigation was satisfied; accordingly summary judgment is appropriate.
2 Jun 1998

PANLEAD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HELEN YEE FONG CHUNG

Citation

PANLEAD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HELEN YEE FONG CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6853/1992

Defendant could not and did not honestly pass good title; deposit HK$200,000 must be refunded with interest from 1 September 1993 at 9% p.a.; damages for loss of bargain assessed as market value at 31 July 1992 less contract price = HK$190,000; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel because of underhand/fraudulent conduct.
7 Jul 1988

WING WONG COMPANY LIMITED v. CHUI YUK MING

Citation

WING WONG COMPANY LIMITED v. CHUI YUK MING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10099/1983

Court awarded damages as purchase price less deposit less eventual resale price ($495,153) adopting the resale price as the proper measure because the plaintiff had mitigated and could not achieve an earlier sale; contractual 1.4% monthly interest was held not to apply following rescission except for a short period on unpaid instalments, and interest was awarded at 1% over prime on assessed damages from date of rescission to judgment and judgment rate thereafter.
20 Mar 1984

FILLCON LTD v. KITTY YEUNG MEI YEE t/a LONGMAN ENTERPRISE

Citation

FILLCON LTD v. KITTY YEUNG MEI YEE t/a LONGMAN ENTERPRISE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5982/1983

Because the defendant defended the proceedings, it was reasonable for the plaintiff to defer purchasing permanent quota until after interlocutory judgment; therefore damages are assessed based on purchases made in September–November 1983 and include temporary quota costs, net permanent quota loss, deposit, interest from writ to judgment and costs to the plaintiff.

Hong Kong Case Law

QIANHAI XINHUAKANG FINANCIAL HOLDINGS (SHENZHEN) LTD v. CHEN JIARONG AND OTHERS

HUGE TREASURE LTD v. JADESPRING LTD

CHOY NGA WAI NANCY v. GENTLE SMART LTD AND ANOTHER

UBS SECURITIES ASIA LTD v. MULTEC INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS LTD

PANLEAD DEVELOPMENT LTD v. HELEN YEE FONG CHUNG

WING WONG COMPANY LIMITED v. CHUI YUK MING

FILLCON LTD v. KITTY YEUNG MEI YEE t/a LONGMAN ENTERPRISE