Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of distributorship agreement

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2021

GOLONG CO., LTD v. SESDERMA, S.L.

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 568
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1646/2020

The Company has demonstrated a genuine and serious cross-claim on substantial grounds supported by evidence (including audited financial statements and particulars of the Defendant's failure to comply with the arbitral award and wrongful termination), sufficient to equal or exceed the Defendant's claimed debt after netting; accordingly presentation of a winding-up petition would be an abuse of process and a quia timet injunction is warranted.
1 Mar 2012

SKY GOLF ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO PROMISE (HK) LTD

Citation

SKY GOLF ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO PROMISE (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1122/2009

Defendant breached the distributorship agreement by failing to place the contractual minimum FW 2008 orders and not paying deposits; Plaintiff established it had shown the licence terms and samples and had relied on Defendant to meet targets; Plaintiff validly accepted repudiation and proved loss; damages assessed at RMB7,510,944.90 with interest and an indemnity against any valid royalty claim by Esprit; Defendant's counterclaims (including refund of deposit and RMB357,245) fail for lack of evidence and unperformed alleged set-off.
8 Apr 2005

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP74/2004

Court found the distributorship and collaboration agreements and commercial matrix evidenced an implied allocation of future goodwill to the Plaintiffs (including FERC as part of the 2nd Plaintiff); Defendants unlawfully exploited those names and produced packages after the breakdown; GMP advertisements published by the 1st Defendant were false and malicious as to Plaintiffs' role and origin and caused likely pecuniary damage; the contested trade mark application for the descriptive expression (Germination Activation) was non-distinctive and not registrable; the P-11 photograph copyright was…
1 Dec 2003

ITW ASIA (PTE) LTD v. TECHNOFIX LTD

Citation

ITW ASIA (PTE) LTD v. TECHNOFIX LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2742/2003

Although contemporaneous documents showed parties acted on a distributorship arrangement for 2002, the agreed term was one year to 30 November 2002. Variations in May 2002 were accepted. The alleged breaches in April 2003 occurred after the agreement's expiry and thus the Defendant failed to establish a real or bona fide defence. Summary judgment for the Plaintiff was therefore appropriate.

Hong Kong Case Law

GOLONG CO., LTD v. SESDERMA, S.L.

SKY GOLF ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO PROMISE (HK) LTD

GUANGZHOU GREEN-ENHAN BIO-ENGINEERING CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. GREEN POWER HEALTH PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL CO LTD AND OTHERS

ITW ASIA (PTE) LTD v. TECHNOFIX LTD