Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral oral agreement

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2024

STORCHEN CREDIT LTD AND OTHERS v. HIRANAND KAMLA LAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2498
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11/2023

Defendants failed to adduce credible, non‑contradicted evidence establishing a bona fide defence; the alleged collateral agreement was inherently implausible and contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct, and the 'poisoning the well' defence relied on unsubstantiated hearsay. Consequently summary judgment was appropriate for the reduced outstanding sum after application of sale proceeds, and plaintiffs are entitled to costs on an indemnity basis.
19 May 2023

KING CROWN DEVELOPMENT LTD v. BARON TUXEDO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKDC 634
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5254/2021

The defendants' primary defence—that an oral Withholding Payment Agreement suspended rent demands—was not believable and was contradicted by contemporaneous documents and conduct; even if believed it would be an unenforceable agreement to agree; clause 11.1 of the TA 2019 made the rent-free period conditional and entitled the landlord to recover rent where the tenant breached; the misrepresentation counterclaim lacked necessary particularity and evidence and was struck out; the guarantor is liable; reinstatement relief was not pleaded in time so cannot be granted on summary judgment though de…
2 Jul 2015

CPC CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG LTD v. HARVEST ENGINEERING (HK) LTD AND ANTOHER

Citation

CPC CONSTRUCTION HONG KONG LTD v. HARVEST ENGINEERING (HK) LTD AND ANTOHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2096/2013

Counterclaim arising out of the subcontract is stayed to arbitration; the claim for repayment is not stayed because loan and guarantee documents contain express non-exclusive Hong Kong court jurisdiction clauses indicating an intention that disputes under those documents be litigated; summary judgment is refused because respondents established a credible collateral oral agreement and other factual issues (use of designated account, direct payments to subcontractors, set-off entitlements) that are capable of belief and require trial; unconditional leave to defend is granted to Harvest and Mr L…
31 May 2011

TOECA NATIONAL RESOURCES B.V. v. BARON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

TOECA NATIONAL RESOURCES B.V. v. BARON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1913/2009

The Master’s refusal was overturned because paragraphs 2, 7 and 8 properly describe classes by the nature of documents sought, the classes are relevant under the broad Peruvian Guano test given the factual context, and discovery (subject to excluding specified due diligence documents) is necessary for the fair disposal of the proceedings and is not oppressive given the modest documented volume (circa 16 box files) and the ability to carve out due diligence material.
27 Aug 2008

HOBEN CO LTD v. ALLIED WORLD LTD

Citation

HOBEN CO LTD v. ALLIED WORLD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2947/2004

The court found as a fact there was no collateral or continuing agreement to reduce the rent either before or at the time of the tenancy agreement or in mid-November 2004; contemporaneous documents and inherent probabilities supported the vendor's account; the purchaser therefore failed to establish misrepresentation or fraud and failed to demonstrate reliance on any unauthorized promotional pamphlet; consequently the purchaser's claims were dismissed and the vendor was entitled to forfeit the deposit and recover sums paid into court.
1 Sept 2006

TOP FLYING INVESTMENT LTD v. OPEN MISSION ASSETS LTD

Citation

TOP FLYING INVESTMENT LTD v. OPEN MISSION ASSETS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA566/2006

Clause 4.2.3 was unambiguous and the lender was entitled to activate the top-up obligation; the alleged collateral oral agreement was incredible and insufficiently pleaded; the alleged pledge to Mr Huang was a fabrication or insufficiently evidenced and did not render specific performance impossible; damages were an inadequate remedy given the defendant's apparent lack of assets; out-of-jurisdiction affirmations before foreign lawyers are inadmissible though a notarised affirmation was admissible; accordingly summary judgment was properly granted and the appeal was dismissed.
27 Apr 2006

FUJITSU PC ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. TECHNIQUE COMPUTER SYSTEM (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

FUJITSU PC ASIA PACIFIC LTD v. TECHNIQUE COMPUTER SYSTEM (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1422/2003

The Guarantee expressly tied the guarantor's liability to 'full settlement' under clause (4) of the No-Action Agreement; therefore the plaintiff's right to sue accrued on or after 30 June 1997. The plaintiff owed no general duty to promptly enforce that would discharge the guarantor and no arguable prejudice was shown. The collateral oral agreement allegation lacked credibility. Summary judgment for the principal sum was therefore proper.
18 Dec 2002

CHINA EVERBRIGHT HOLDINGS CO. LTD. v. SYNERGY FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT HOLDINGS CO. LTD. v. SYNERGY FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA933/2002

Defendants failed to discharge the strict burden of proving the alleged collateral oral agreements; the United Wide Letter and other materials did not establish the First Collateral Agreement and the Second raised issues of potential illegality requiring a trial. Consequently summary judgment was entered in respect of the 2nd and 3rd actions for the specific sums, interest and costs; the 1st action was granted unconditional leave to defend and must proceed to trial on issues including alleged illegality under Companies Ordinance s47A.
18 Dec 2002

CHINA EVERBRIGHT HOLDINGS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SYNERGY FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA EVERBRIGHT HOLDINGS CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. SYNERGY FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA935/2002

Defendants failed to strictly prove the alleged collateral oral agreements and their unexplained, inconsistent assertions were not believable on the affidavit materials; summary judgment was therefore entered on the 2nd and 3rd actions for the sums due with interest and costs, while unconditional leave to defend was given in the 1st action because the alleged collateral arrangement relating to share-support raised potentially triable issues including possible illegality under the Companies Ordinance.
8 Feb 2002

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD. v. KEEN LLOYD RESOURCES LTD.

Citation

BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD. v. KEEN LLOYD RESOURCES LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1787/2001

Where the defendant admitted the primary facts supporting the plaintiff's claim and the alleged collateral oral agreement was found incredible, vague and contradicted by clear written documentation, there was no triable issue and summary judgment for the plaintiff was proper; the appeal was dismissed.