Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Collateral warranty

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2012

SUN HING HONG TRAVEL AGENCY CO LTD v. WESTMINSTER TRAVEL LTD

Citation

SUN HING HONG TRAVEL AGENCY CO LTD v. WESTMINSTER TRAVEL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA662/2010

Court found on the evidence that an oral Security Agreement existed (refunds held as security) and that WTL gave a pre-contractual 1st Undertaking which, while promissory estoppel and waiver failed (no pre-existing right to waive), did give rise to a collateral warranty and an estoppel by convention preventing WTL from exercising its contractual right to charge overdue interest under Clauses 3 and 4; Clause 4 was construed so WTL must properly exercise and give notice to charge interest and WTL did not validly do so; accordingly SHH prevailed, WTL's counterclaim dismissed and judgment entered…
16 Aug 2012

SUN HING HONG TRAVEL AGENCY CO LTD v. WESTMINSTER TRAVEL LTD

Citation

SUN HING HONG TRAVEL AGENCY CO LTD v. WESTMINSTER TRAVEL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA680/2010

The court found on the evidence that an oral Security Agreement existed and therefore the full agreed refunds of HK$10,105,054.30 were held by WTL as security and payable to SHH (subject to set-off). The court found WTL had not validly exercised its contractual right under Clause 4 to demand overdue interest; promissory estoppel and waiver failed because no pre-existing right to be waived existed prior to the 1st Credit Agreement, but a collateral warranty and estoppel by convention arising from the 1st Undertaking prevented WTL from charging overdue interest; as a result WTL's counterclaim f…
15 Sept 2010

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWONG KIN YIN v. SHUN LEE COPPER & DECORATION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI285/2008

The amendment to plead a contractual undertaking based on the letter of completion was allowed because the third party failed to demonstrate prejudice or delay to milestone dates, the additional evidence required is minimal and unlikely to lengthen the estimated six day trial, and the new claim falls within Order 16 r.1 as an indemnity/contractual claim related to the same occurrence; consequential directions and a costs order were made.
8 Apr 2009

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

GREAT SOURCE ENTERPRISE LTD v. SINO ESTATES MANAGEMENT LTD
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM167/2001

Respondent did not breach contractual, implied or fiduciary duties. The DMC imposes a duty of proper management, not absolute liability; Respondent took reasonable steps, consulted the OC, submitted proposals including police recommendations, and there was insufficient evidence of favouritism or improper conduct. Declaratory relief would no longer serve a useful purpose given subsequent security changes, so the application is dismissed.
31 Jul 2007

PROSPER OCEAN (HONG KONG) SHIPPING LTD v. LEE SAI WAN AND OTHERS

Citation

PROSPER OCEAN (HONG KONG) SHIPPING LTD v. LEE SAI WAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL24/2006

The claim against the 4th and 5th defendants is struck out because the Minutes do not on their face establish the alleged representations nor sufficient facts to infer knowledge or recklessness; by contrast, the claim against the 3rd defendant must proceed to trial because he signed two documents (Bill of Sale and Protocol) that expressly represented the vessel was unencumbered and the amended pleading raises arguable inferences of his awareness or recklessness such that the matter is not demurrable at interlocutory stage.
9 Sept 2003

LAI KAM HING v. LAW KING YIN AND OTHERS

Citation

LAI KAM HING v. LAW KING YIN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3649/2001

The court accepted the solicitor's credible evidence that no representations about illegal structures were made at signing and, on the balance of probabilities, found no actionable oral or conduct misrepresentation or collateral warranty; clause 2(x) applied when the government prohibited the tenant's business, rendering the tenancy null and void, and defendants entitled to retain the deposit and recover reinstatement costs and outstanding rent with interest; plaintiff's claims dismissed.
17 Feb 2003

ZENUNA LTD v. PROGRESS YEAR INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZENUNA LTD v. PROGRESS YEAR INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2373/2002

The notice of termination was validly served by registered post to the 1st defendant's registered office and the tenancy therefore terminated; the tenancy agreement's entire agreement clause barred the alleged collateral oral agreement; the 1st defendant breached the non-assignment covenant by transferring possession to the 2nd defendants; the 2nd defendants were trespassers and could not obtain a stay; accordingly the appeal and the application for stay were dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff as ordered.
24 Apr 2002

TSANG SZE LOK v. POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

TSANG SZE LOK v. POLYLINE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA19615/1999

Court found director made the representations relied upon by the plaintiff, those representations amounted to a collateral warranty, the defendant lacked the intention and approvals to commence construction by the dates promised, plaintiff validly rescinded the agreement and is entitled to return of deposit, repayment of transfer fee and damages for payments induced by the misrepresentation, plus interest and costs.
28 Feb 2002

LEE LAI CHUN v. GRAND SEASONS (CENTRAL) AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE LAI CHUN v. GRAND SEASONS (CENTRAL) AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6329/2001

Although the court accepted that representations were likely made to induce the plaintiff to enter the licence, the subsequent agreement with HKHA was not a renewal on similar terms (different premises, different permitted user, loss of licence rights, different rent formula). Therefore the specific representation tied to HKHA renewing the tenancy could not have been breached, and the alternate representation that the defendant would renew the licence if it remained tenant was not established in terms that created an enforceable obligation; accordingly the plaintiff's claims failed and were d…
4 May 2001

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO. LTD. v. PROFIT MAKING INVESTMENT LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

EDWARD WONG FINANCE CO. LTD. v. PROFIT MAKING INVESTMENT LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1049/2000

The appeal fails because the defendants did not establish that Michael Chan was the plaintiff's agent (no evidence of actual or apparent authority), the alleged collateral warranty was barred by the formal agreement's entire agreement clauses and in any event was too uncertain, and therefore the defendants' defence was not credible and summary judgment for the plaintiff was justified.