Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of contract clauses

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2006

GOLIK CONCRETE LTD v. TOWA CONCRETE LTD

Citation

GOLIK CONCRETE LTD v. TOWA CONCRETE LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7267/2003

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success: the defendant's new assertions contradicted the trial record and an admission under cross-examination (as evidenced by the schedule) established full payment by MCWJV; additionally, the judge would have reached the same conclusion on quality for other reasons in the judgment.
2 Dec 1999

JUMBO KING LTD v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

JUMBO KING LTD v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV7/1999

On the true construction of the DMC and sub-DMC the developer’s undivided shares carried exclusive occupation rights in the disputed utility rooms and roof spaces which could validly be assigned with undivided shares; clauses 18(e) and 19 (and clause 10 time limit) in the sale agreement validly allocated the risk of unauthorised structures to the purchaser absent evidence of vendor’s actual knowledge or concealment; purchaser’s objections were without substance and were time-barred, therefore rescission and refund of the further deposit was not justified and the appeal is dismissed.
30 Oct 1997

KONSAN (HONG KONG) LIMITED v. UNITREND COMPUTER LIMITED

Citation

KONSAN (HONG KONG) LIMITED v. UNITREND COMPUTER LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3522/1997

Signing the formal sale and purchase agreement was not a mandatory step; the provisional agreement remained binding. Given the purchaser had withheld release of the further deposit pending signature, the vendor did not lose the right under Clause 8 to call off the sale after the target date for signing but before completion. The vendor was entitled to refund the initial deposit plus an amount equivalent to it and reimbursement of stamp duty; plaintiff’s claim for specific performance dismissed.
2 Apr 1993

THE THOMPSETT MIND LIMITED v. TRIUMPH FIELD LIMITED

Citation

THE THOMPSETT MIND LIMITED v. TRIUMPH FIELD LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1826/1992

On proper construction Clause 5, read with Clause 4 and the agreement as a whole, was not plain and unambiguous so as to permit the vendor to escape the obligation to complete by payment of liquidated damages and refund of the deposit; therefore the defendant cannot rely on Clause 5 to resist a claim for specific performance.
18 Mar 1985

WOOMERA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. PROVIDENT CENTRE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

WOOMERA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. PROVIDENT CENTRE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV29/1985

Clause 16 is permissive and affords an alternative contractual remedy but does not, as a matter of construction, exclude common law damages; the court has discretion under R.S.C. Order 20 r.8 to allow the defendants to re-re-amend their counterclaim and Liu J.'s grant of leave was a proper exercise of that discretion and is therefore affirmed.
31 Jul 1979

TANG WAI-CHEE v. AIK SAN REALTY LTD

Citation

TANG WAI-CHEE v. AIK SAN REALTY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3425/1978

The contract clauses making time of the essence and deeming registered-post notices to be effective when posted meant the defendant's notice was effective; the plaintiff was aware of the occupation permit and obligations, defaulted after the notice period expired, and the payment of $119,190 was properly characterized as a forfeitable deposit, so specific performance was refused and the defendant entitled to retain the sum.

Hong Kong Case Law

GOLIK CONCRETE LTD v. TOWA CONCRETE LTD

JUMBO KING LTD v. FAITHFUL PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

KONSAN (HONG KONG) LIMITED v. UNITREND COMPUTER LIMITED

THE THOMPSETT MIND LIMITED v. TRIUMPH FIELD LIMITED

WOOMERA CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER v. PROVIDENT CENTRE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

TANG WAI-CHEE v. AIK SAN REALTY LTD