Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of agreement

Legal area

Court

1 Jun 2021

YEUNG CHIU SING RICKY AND ANOTHER v. TSUI TACK KONG

Citation

[2021] HKDC 582
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6755/2019

The parties contractually agreed that EY's independent opinion would be authoritative on the deferred tax dispute; EY's report adhered to the engagement letter and expressly addressed the balancing charge and deferred tax accounting issues, concluding no balancing charge on a share sale and that only a negligible deferred tax asset existed; the defendant failed to show any material departure by EY or any triable issue supported by contemporaneous evidence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for plaintiffs to release HK$639,835 with interest and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
5 Mar 2020

SIU WAI MING v. SHIU WAI HONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 386
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA290/2014

On the evidence the plaintiff unequivocally surrendered his beneficial interest in the Scenic Garden Property during the May 1998 telephone call; consequently he had no entitlement to account for rental or sale proceeds, the re-mortgage was not wrongful in the circumstances and the tracing claim to the Broadwood purchase failed; plaintiff's overall claims dismissed and costs awarded to defendants.
13 Sept 2017

BAR PACIFIC XXXVI INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHU HUNG PAN

Citation

BAR PACIFIC XXXVI INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHU HUNG PAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP779/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant's intended grounds had no reasonable prospect of success: the Agreement was properly found binding and the defendant contracting party; the judge permissibly awarded damages to be assessed for the plaintiff's 30% share because the pleadings (and conduct in amendments and trial) put that issue squarely in dispute without causing surprise or prejudice; the late production of monthly accounts caused no prejudice as the defendant had copies and further disclosure was agreed; therefore no arguable appeal and leave denied.
21 Feb 2014

THE HONG KONG SCHOOL NET LTD v. E-EDUCATION PUBLISHING LTD

Citation

THE HONG KONG SCHOOL NET LTD v. E-EDUCATION PUBLISHING LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1177/2011

On the balance of probabilities the court found that specified items in the 50/50 written cooperation agreements were defendant's production costs wrongly included in statements of account from January 2006 onwards (within six years); those production costs totalled $2,355,239.13 and plaintiff was entitled to half that amount, leading to judgment for plaintiff for $1,177,619.57 plus interest and costs.
11 Jan 2012

WAI MING TRADING LTD v. POON TANG FAT

Citation

WAI MING TRADING LTD v. POON TANG FAT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP590/2011

Partition was impracticable and not beneficial to all co-owners given the Property's small area (2,613.60 sq ft), low market value (HKD 500,000), the defendant's one-twelfth interest, the parties' disagreement, and likely costs and difficulty of dividing the land; the defendant's prior agreement to sell in 2005 supported ordering a sale; there was no evidence of very great hardship to the defendant; accordingly an order for sale under section 6 was granted and costs awarded to the plaintiff (to be taxed if not agreed).
22 Jul 2011

HUI WAI SHING v. SZE WAI

Citation

HUI WAI SHING v. SZE WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1348/2009

The court accepted Sze's evidence as credible and rejected Hui's; it found the oral Agreement existed and was breached by Hui's withholding of executed transfer documents, rejected the non est factum defence and the alleged theft claim for lack of evidence, held the HK$1.1m was a repayment, granted declaratory and injunctive relief in terms of the amended statement of claim and dismissed Hui's counterclaim and separate action.
21 Aug 2008

LEE CHEE LUNG v. QI YAXUAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE CHEE LUNG v. QI YAXUAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1808/2006

The plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the parties entered the Undertaking obliging each defendant to pay RMB15,000,000 with a first instalment of RMB3,000,000, that the defendants breached by failing to pay, and that clause 7 therefore entitles the plaintiff to the unconditional re-assignment of the 4,000 shares from each defendant; the counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence and because the relief sought belonged to the company, not the defendants.
14 Dec 2005

PAUL\'S MODEL ART GMBH & CO KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PAUL\'S MODEL ART GMBH & CO KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/2005

Appeal allowed in part: documents in the first category (sales/accounting/shipping relating to 1/12 and 1/43 models and correspondence about those) were not discoverable because the pleadings did not raise an issue connecting Davidson or those documents to the 4th defendant's liability and disclosure would permit fishing; documents relating to 1/18 orders from the 1st defendant already disclosed were relevant and properly ordered; incorporation and limited shareholder documents (second category) were relevant to the pleaded allegation that the 2nd defendant incorporated the Gateway companies…
28 Jul 2005

KIN WAH J F CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. L&M FOUNDATION SPECIALIST LTD

Citation

KIN WAH J F CONSTRUCTION & ENGINEERING CO LTD v. L&M FOUNDATION SPECIALIST LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV28/2005

The Court held that the settlement agreement contained an express condition that payment of $179,169.90 be made within ten working days, that the time for payment was of the essence, and that the agreement was founded on executed performance so that failure to pay within the stipulated time meant the settlement did not discharge the plaintiff's original claim; the defendant, which pleaded the settlement, bore the onus of proof and failed to prove satisfaction, therefore the trial judge's finding that the settlement was not binding was upheld.
8 Jun 2005

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS

Citation

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. SUN YAT SEN UNIVERSITY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2802/2003

The judge applied a global balancing approach: the parties' respective successes and failures largely offset each other, the claims and evidence were intertwined, and identified misconduct and preparation failures on both sides warranted discounts. Taking those factors and existing interlocutory costs orders into account, the court exercised its discretion to vary the costs order nisi and directed that, subject to prior costs orders, each party bear their own costs of the action.