Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of agreement

Legal area

Court

11 Mar 2025

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING (新興大廈業主立案法團) v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LIMITED (聯耀(香港)有限公司), GLORY RIVER DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (濠江發展有限公司)

Citation

[2025] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV160/2024

Leave refused because the Court of Appeal correctly concluded the Agreement was a mutual exchange conferring exclusive use (not a licence terminable at will), the criticisms of the Court of Appeal's approach were without substance, and the questions advanced were either not of general importance, fact-specific or not reasonably arguable.
18 Oct 2024

THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF SUN HING BUILDING v. JOIN PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 943
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV106/2023

The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeals and dismissed the IO's application: the Agreement did not permit unilateral termination at will; instead it is terminable by reasonable notice only where a party establishes a legitimate need or cause to restore the original configuration; the Court properly construed the Agreement as a matter of law and declined leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
14 Aug 2020

ATKINS CHINA LTD v. CHINA STATE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2092
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1193/2020

The court found a serious issue to be tried that the Settlement Agreement may have extinguished the right to arbitrate, but refused to grant the interim injunction ex parte on notice because the plaintiff had not shown sufficient urgency to deprive the defendant of an inter partes hearing; the matter was adjourned for inter partes determination and the defendant permitted to file opposition; disputes on validity/effect of the Settlement Agreement may properly be determined by the court rather than an arbitrator.
10 Oct 2007

ARTWELL TEXTILES CO LTD v. WALLTEX LTD

Citation

ARTWELL TEXTILES CO LTD v. WALLTEX LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ21386/2001

The court construed the Agreement to make payment of the balance deposit and the first six months' rent contingent on signing the formal tenancy agreement; the Plaintiff was entitled to reasonable time to consider the solicitor‑drafted terms; the Defendant's letter of 18 September 2001 wrongfully accepted repudiation; consequently the Defendant must refund the deposit and pay the agreed liquidated damages.
4 Oct 2007

GIAN ANDREA PESCI AND ANOTHER v. PETER MIU AND ANOTHER

Citation

GIAN ANDREA PESCI AND ANOTHER v. PETER MIU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2075/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the matters contended to be uncertain arose from the wording of the Memorandum of Agreement and required construction and evidence at trial rather than further and better particulars; the plaintiffs had pleaded the transfer and the claimed purchase consideration sufficiently and the loss was pleaded as US$200,000 so particulars were unnecessary.
10 Apr 2001

WEST COAST INTERNATIONAL (PARKING) LTD. v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

WEST COAST INTERNATIONAL (PARKING) LTD. v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV998/2000

The 23 March 1999 letter constituted a continuation of the existing quarterly tenancy with revised rent and an increased deposit; the change in rent and deposit did not amount to a surrender and regrant or creation of a new two‑year tenancy, and the landlord validly terminated the continued tenancy by giving the contractual three months' notice, so the appeal is dismissed.
30 Nov 1998

RAYMOND PAO AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PUI TAK, PETER

Citation

RAYMOND PAO AND ANOTHER v. CHAN PUI TAK, PETER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT115/1997

The award was set aside because the arbitrator's finding that the plaintiffs were liable for unpaid wages was not supported by the properly construed provisions of the joint venture agreement (clauses 2.4 and 6.1), the defendant did not plead or argue clause 3.1(o) or any implied term in arbitration and therefore could not rely on them in court, and there was no basis to imply the suggested term as being obviously intended; accordingly paragraphs 4(a),(b),(d) and (e) of the award were set aside and the defendant was not granted leave to rely on the respondent's notice.
16 Sept 1996

GUOJI TRANSPORT CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

GUOJI TRANSPORT CO LTD v. THE COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA30/1995

The agreement constituted a lease because it granted exclusive possession of specific units, imposed obligations and liabilities consistent with a tenancy, involved substantial consideration tied to occupation and investment, and satisfied the certainty requirement because the maximum duration was limited by Guoji's leasehold interest; accordingly the agreement was chargeable to stamp duty under Head 1(2)(a) on the stated consideration of HK$11,033,561.83 producing duty of HK$303,424.
4 Dec 1986

HAR SIO YING ALSO KNOWN AS LAW HAR SIO YING v. CHUNG YAU CHEUNG

Citation

HAR SIO YING ALSO KNOWN AS LAW HAR SIO YING v. CHUNG YAU CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2370/1986

Construing the Chinese agreement as a lease, clause permitting revocation must be read to allow the plaintiff to give notice to recover possession for a prima facie genuine reason subject to a minimum of three months' notice (informed by ss.122 and 127(B)); the plaintiff's notice taken as a whole amounted to sufficient notice and the defendant was a trespasser from 16 April 1986, entitling the plaintiff to possession and damages.