Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Compromise/settlement

  • 23 Jul 2014

    ENDOZO MAYLIN PALOMAR v. LEE CHI MING

    Citation
    ENDOZO MAYLIN PALOMAR v. LEE CHI MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV247/2013

    The compromise in the Labour Tribunal related only to contractual claims that were before that forum; the Labour Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine a tort claim for malicious prosecution which was not pleaded there; consequently the settlement did not bar the plaintiff from pursuing a separate malicious prosecution tort claim in the appropriate court and the strike out for abuse of process was not justified; appeal allowed.

  • 21 Jul 2014

    MASTER WEAVING LTD v. HANBO ENTERPRISES LTD

    Citation
    MASTER WEAVING LTD v. HANBO ENTERPRISES LTD
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA676/2012

    On the evidence the fabrics under both FPOs were not proved to be defective attributable to the plaintiff; the defendant nevertheless accepted the fabrics by conduct (manufacturing garments, issuing cargo receipt leading to LC payment, and applying for another LC); the contemporaneous email from the defendant's merchandiser and the parties' conduct established a binding collateral compromise to hold and account for payments and to apply proceeds after resale, which barred recovery of the sums claimed for the 2nd FPO and the 8 invoices; plaintiff succeeded only on the 2009 invoice for US$477 w…

  • 4 Nov 2013

    RE KE JUN XIANG

    Citation
    RE KE JUN XIANG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB5753/2012

    The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying a lengthy stay or adjournment despite the settlement; the public interest in the swift resolution of bankruptcy matters and the existence of another petition militated against granting the adjournment; accordingly the petition was dismissed and costs of the Official Receiver ordered paid from the deposit.

  • 17 Oct 2011

    SAMUEL TAK LEE v. TSANG, CHIU WING FLORENCE

    Citation
    SAMUEL TAK LEE v. TSANG, CHIU WING FLORENCE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA566/2010

    The court refused leave to amend the counterclaim because the compromise expressly conceded judgment on specified paragraphs and temporal parameters; however the court granted the adjournment of the assessment of damages, holding that damages owed by husband and father arising from tort do not appropriately function as a resource to reduce ancillary relief in the way third‑party debts might, and that exceptional/extraordinary circumstances justified varying the milestone trial date under RHC O 25 r 1B and the court's power under O 25 r 1A/1B(1).

  • 29 Jul 2011

    MACPI GROUP (HK) LTD v. YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND

    Citation
    MACPI GROUP (HK) LTD v. YAP BEE HONG CHRISAND
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ5593/2007

    The settlement recorded and paid on 12 March 2007 at the Labour Department was a compromise of an honest claim and therefore Macpi HK could not recover part of that payment as mistaken overpayment; clause 3 is to be read as applying an annual US$500,000 threshold with commission payments made every six months as practice and background confirmed; no valid variation of terms was agreed so original terms applied, entitling Ms Yap to 2007 commissions; however Ms Yap offered to and must repay salary increments for Oct–Dec 2006 and Jan–Mar 2007 which are set off against her commission award yieldi…

  • 20 Jan 2004

    RE LEUNG TZE HANG DAVID

    Citation
    RE LEUNG TZE HANG DAVID
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB18073/2002

    The court exercised its discretion to order cross-examination because the dispute concerned whether the debt had been paid or compounded for (a condition under ss6 and 6D), the evidential burden shifted to the debtor to prove payment/compounding, and the genuineness and bona fides of the debtor's affidavit evidence could not properly be determined without cross-examination; affidavits alone were insufficient to decide the petition.

  • 7 Jun 2002

    SANBEAU TRADING CO. LTD. v. GEMEX TRADING AG

    Citation
    SANBEAU TRADING CO. LTD. v. GEMEX TRADING AG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA7421/2000

    The Court held that the alleged set-off based on the compromise document could not be characterised as a sham on its face; because the compromise document on its face more than arguably constituted a settlement for defective goods (DM153,000), the set-off could operate as a shield and therefore interlocutory judgment under Order 14 should not have been entered; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the Order 14 judgment set aside.

  • 4 Jul 2001

    LEUNG SIU YING v. CHUNG TAT MING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LEUNG SIU YING v. CHUNG TAT MING AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6323/2001

    The alleged settlement raises factual issues that must be determined in the Court of First Instance because a finding that a pre-judgment compromise exists could justify setting aside the judgment (and post-judgment compromise affects enforceability); decisions of the Court of First Instance bind the District Court and a lower court should not be allowed to overturn or determine matters that may impinge on a higher court's judgment by simple arithmetic subtraction of amounts claimed; accordingly factual issues must be tried (viva voce) in the appropriate forum and execution should be stayed u…

  • 29 Aug 2000

    TANG PIU HUNG v. YEUNG CHU TANG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    TANG PIU HUNG v. YEUNG CHU TANG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA11477/1999

    The judge set aside the master's conditional order, found the defendants' short‑notice breach claim not arguable and rejected the alleged compromise on HWT containers, but held the defendants had an arguable set-off of $105,148 because HWH's obligations to return containers arose before liquidation; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff for $92,052 and defendants were given unconditional leave to defend up to $105,148, with interest and costs orders following the event.

  • 7 May 1999

    C. MAHENDRA EXPORTS (H.K.) (a firm) v. SOUTH SEAS JEWELLERY CO. LTD.

    Citation
    C. MAHENDRA EXPORTS (H.K.) (a firm) v. SOUTH SEAS JEWELLERY CO. LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA16240/1998

    The defendant's affirmation lacked the necessary particulars to show a real prospect of defending the claim; the alleged compromise and other defences were shadowy and unsupported by evidence, therefore the Master's conditional grant of leave to defend subject to payment of $133,399 into court was appropriate and the appeal must be dismissed.