Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Compromise/settlement agreement

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2022

RE CA CULTURAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW190/2022

The court held the SA constituted a compromise that, on its proper construction, discharged the original debt on signing and obligated the Petitioner to withdraw the petition; the Petitioner’s continued pursuit of the petition after 1 June 2022 was an abuse of process and the petition was therefore liable to be struck out. Because a bona fide dispute was established on the debt, the court declined to entertain alternative insolvency arguments. The court also granted the validation order for the share transfer and refused leave for the Petitioner to file a further affirmation.
28 Jan 2013

KITAK MACHINERY ENGINEERING CO LTD v. FIGURE WELL LTD

Citation

KITAK MACHINERY ENGINEERING CO LTD v. FIGURE WELL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ768/2010

The court accepted the plaintiff's evidence as credible and supported by contemporaneous documents (summaries and invoices). Those documents demonstrated that the compromise calculations did not include depot/site office expenses and that the parties, by the terms of the subcontract and their conduct, contemplated depot to include a site office. Therefore the compromise did not discharge the plaintiff's claim for half the depot/site office expenses and the defendant is liable to pay half, being $505,879.64, plus interest and costs.
29 Aug 2006

WONG YIN MUI SANDY v. NEWPORT MAY

Citation

WONG YIN MUI SANDY v. NEWPORT MAY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2477/2004

On the facts the Court found the cheque genuine, the parties reached a compromise settling disputed employment entitlements such that Plaintiff forborne pursuing statutory claims against the company in exchange for the $441,000 payment, the deceased intended to be personally liable (not acting merely as agent), the agreement was supported by valuable consideration and was not void under s.70 Employment Ordinance or public policy; accordingly Plaintiff was entitled to judgment for the cheque amount with interest.
7 Apr 1999

GUANGZHOU TEXTILES IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION v. BARTHIAN LTD.

Citation

GUANGZHOU TEXTILES IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION v. BARTHIAN LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8997/1997

The court concluded that although a compromise was evidenced, there was a credible basis for the defendant's assertion that the memorandum reflected only a unilateral obligation on the plaintiff to accept US$95,000 if paid and did not create an unconditional obligation on the defendant to pay; consequently summary judgment could not be entered for US$95,000. However, the master had erred in calculating the sums for which summary judgment was given: the returned goods deduction should be US$33,556 rather than US$54,058, producing summary judgment of US$66,856.08. The defendant was permitted co…

Hong Kong Case Law

RE CA CULTURAL TECHNOLOGY GROUP LTD

KITAK MACHINERY ENGINEERING CO LTD v. FIGURE WELL LTD

WONG YIN MUI SANDY v. NEWPORT MAY

GUANGZHOU TEXTILES IMPORT & EXPORT CORPORATION v. BARTHIAN LTD.