Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Causation of loss

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2026

EVERSHINE CLEANING SERVICE COMPANY LTD 對 GCINT WEALTH MANAGEMENT LTD (Formerly known as "UNITED ABLE INTERNATIONAL LTD")

Citation

[2026] HKDC 347
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1930/2022

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted plaintiff's witnesses and contemporaneous evidence that the solicitors' letters were delivered to the intermediary in October 2019, and accepted the insurer's evidence that it only received them on 20 March 2020; the delay was caused by the intermediary/defendant, not the plaintiff; the intermediary had a duty to forward claim documents and to supervise staff; defendant breached that duty and caused the insurer to decline cover, therefore defendant is liable to reimburse the settlements and legal costs awarded.
2 Feb 2026

RICKEED INDUSTRIES LTD AND ANOTHER v. HONG KONG TOHKOH COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCA 105
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2022

The appeal was allowed because the judge's factual finding that a majority of the goods under PO1 and PO2 were defective lacked evidential basis; in consequence breach of the implied conditions and causation of the claimed loss were not established and the damages award based on resale differentials was unsafe; the judgment below was set aside and the plaintiffs' claim dismissed.
17 Oct 2025

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA279/2021

The Master's order permitting the Defendant to adduce expert evidence on Indian law was correct because the Property is in India and lex situs governs the validity of the conveyance; whether the Purchase was legally binding under Indian law is relevant to causation of loss. The presumption of similarity does not displace the need for expert evidence where the foreign law is put in issue. There was no evidential basis to exclude the Defendant's expert for lack of independence. The costs order in respect of the adjournment was not unreasonable or legally erroneous and should stand.
10 May 2024

NUOXI CAPITAL LTD (IN LIQUIDATION IN THE BRITISH VIRGIN ISLANDS) v. PEKING UNIVERSITY FOUNDER GROUP COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCA 445
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2023

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in dismissing the three claims in HCA 778/2021, HCA 1418/2021 and HCA 1442/2021; clause 2.2 is a defence/qualification requiring PUFG to prove inability to obtain approvals, not a condition precedent destroying liability; the Administrator is not an 'Approval Authority' under the deeds; alternative modes of performance were not conclusively excluded on the evidence; accordingly declarations were granted that PUFG breached the relevant Keepwell Deeds on 16 April 2020 and became liable for specified US dollar sums.
18 Jul 2023

E & P GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD (formerly known as SIBERIAN MINING GROUP CO) v. CHEUNG KENG CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1847
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA706/2010

Plaintiff failed to prove on the required standard that the defendants committed fraudulent or reckless breaches in relation to the Grandtop, MAIL and KKL investments; the first defendant’s explanations were credible, documentary errors were innocent mistakes, due diligence and auditor involvement undercut recklessness allegations, and there was insufficient evidence, so the claim against all defendants is dismissed.
29 Jun 2022

ANTHONY ERIC RYAN HOTUNG v. HOTUNG, MICHAEL ERIC A.B. MAK SHUN MING, the Executor of the Estate of HO YUEN KI WINNIE, also known as HO YUEN KI, deceased

Citation

[2022] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV151/2021

Appeal dismissed because the appellant was bound by the specific breaches pleaded in the re-amended statement of claim; the broader 'safeguarding duty' breaches relied on at appeal were unpleaded and could not be introduced by reference to trial evidence; the only breach proved was failure to inform the beneficiary on reaching majority but no causal link or loss was established, justifying only nominal damages of $1; costs awarded against the appellant.
11 Dec 2015

PENTA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)

Citation

PENTA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/2015

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the formulated questions were fact‑specific and did not raise issues of great general or public importance, the defendant did not satisfy the high threshold under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b), and the matter is appropriately left for the Court of Final Appeal to consider itself; indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff because the defendant insisted on an oral hearing but advanced no oral arguments, causing wasted costs.
4 Aug 2014

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS

Citation

KOMAL PATEL AND OTHERS v. CHRIS AU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA183/2014

The court refused the adjournment and declined to order an inquiry as to damages because the 1st and 2nd defendants failed to adduce credible evidence that the injunction of 29 January 2014 caused them compensable loss; in the exercise of its discretion and having regard to the purpose of the injunction (freezing substantial funds in the 3rd defendant) and the defendants' conduct, enforcement of the plaintiffs' undertaking was refused and no inquiry ordered.
7 Dec 2012

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI

Citation

MOULIN GLOBAL EYECARE HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. OLIVIA LEE SIN MEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV155/2012

The Court held as a matter of law that (1) repayment of genuine convertible-note liabilities did not cause loss to the company because asset reductions were matched by liability reductions, so the Convertible Notes Claim is plain and obvious no-issue and was struck out; (2) the Share Repurchases Claim and the Convertible Notes Claim each constituted new causes of action for limitation purposes and did not arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the pleaded Dividends Claim, so they could not be introduced by late amendment; (3) extension of time to permit the defendant to chal…
19 May 2011

MGA ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. TOYS & TRENDS (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MGA ENTERTAINMENT INC. v. TOYS & TRENDS (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2152/2002

The court found that MGA's unreasonable delay and conduct in obtaining and maintaining the interlocutory injunction materially destroyed the defendants' market position; the defendants established that the injunction was the overwhelming cause of their loss; equity requires enforcement of the cross-undertaking and a liberal assessment of damages resulted in an award to the defendants of US$7,250,000 (plus costs).