Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of contract clause

Legal area

Court

29 May 2023

BONDS GROUP CO LTD v. KWAN DANIEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1396
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1861/2017

Court varied the costs order nisi: defendants awarded 60% of their costs on a party and party basis up to and including 14 March 2019 (expert costs excluded); defendants awarded 80% of their costs on an indemnity basis from 15 March 2019 to 12 December 2022 (expert costs excluded); interest at 6% p.a. from 15 March 2019 to 12 December 2022; no order as to costs of the application. The variation was justified because the plaintiff failed to do better than the sanctioned payment, RHC Order 22 r.23 prima facie applied, and the court exercised discretion considering reasonableness, public interes…
12 Feb 2015

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS

Citation

FOK CHUN YUE BENJAMIN v. FOK CHUN WAN IAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV13/2014

The judge erred in making a final summary determination of the construction of Clause 19(e) because there were serious, triable factual disputes central to the contextual background necessary for construction (including allegations of non‑disclosure, nominee arrangements and competing claims to beneficial ownership). The appropriate exercise of discretion was to set aside the stay order of 3 January 2014 and instead order a stay of the action pending fresh legal proceedings concerning the Settlement Agreement to be filed within 28 days, allowing the substantive disputes to be resolved in full…
16 Feb 2007

YESLAND LTD AND OTHERS v. CHINA FURNITURE CITY LTD

Citation

YESLAND LTD AND OTHERS v. CHINA FURNITURE CITY LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV39/2006

Recorder B Yu's exercise of discretion to grant conditional leave to defend subject to payment-into-court was lawful and supported by the evidence; the defendant failed to demonstrate inability to comply and did not satisfy the conditions, therefore final judgment should be entered and Recorder K Kwok's orders (vacant possession and monetary awards including mesne profits) stand; clause 13(b)-(c) construed as applying to sub-clause (a)(ii) only.
28 Feb 2006

SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD

Citation

SUN WEALTHY LTD v. GALANT MOTORS LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV184/2005

Clause 11 requires that the vendor's inability or unwillingness to comply be communicated to the purchaser and that the purchaser insist on the requisition before a valid Clause 11 notice can be served; the notice served on 8 September 2004 was premature and invalid because there had been no communicated refusal and the requisition for a certified copy arose only on 7 September 2004.
24 May 2001

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.

Citation

BHAGWAN SHANKARDAS MOORJANI v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV116/2000

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the matter involved questions of great general or public importance or any other good reason to justify granting leave; accordingly the application was dismissed and the security for costs and sums paid into court were ordered repaid with interest as specified.
5 Apr 2000

GOLDSPEED INVESTMENT LTD. v. EASY SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LTD.

Citation

GOLDSPEED INVESTMENT LTD. v. EASY SUCCESS ENTERPRISES LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8187/1998

Clause 16 did not exclude the vendor's right to common law damages; because the vendor did not resell within six months it could not retain the part payments under Clause 16, but it had a valid counterclaim for common law damages equal to contract price less market price; equitable set-off of that counterclaim extinguished the purchaser's claim, resulting in a net judgment for the vendor of HK$2,640,000 plus interest and costs.
12 Jun 1996

DR WANG TZE SAM, WILSON O.B.E, JP v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

Citation

DR WANG TZE SAM, WILSON O.B.E, JP v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP936/1996

The Director's decision and the circular requiring termination of the Bought Place Scheme when a school joins the Direct Subsidy Scheme are lawful and rational, and Clause 14 of the agreement properly construed requires termination of the old scheme prior to commencement of the new; no ground for judicial review was made out.
8 May 1985

WOOMERA COMPANY LIMTED AND ANOTHER v. PROVIDENT CENTRE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED

Citation

WOOMERA COMPANY LIMTED AND ANOTHER v. PROVIDENT CENTRE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV29/1985

Clause 16 was construed and the Court of Appeal concluded that it did not take away the vendors' right to sue for common law damages; the issue is of great general and public importance and conditional leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council is therefore granted.