Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of deed

Legal area

Court

21 Aug 2019

YUEN KAM LOK EDDY v. LAU GEORGE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 1109
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5821/2018

The Deed is to be construed so that Clause 3(c) covers obligations that the plaintiff had already assumed with the defendant's prior written consent in 2013 and does not require a second round of prior written approval before reimbursement is payable; the Bank's claim for overdue hire charges and legal costs was a claim in debt (not damages) and thus mitigation principles did not afford defendant an arguable defence; defendant raised no triable issue and summary judgment was proper for the plaintiff for 50% of the sum paid to the Bank.
11 Dec 2015

PENTA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)

Citation

PENTA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/2015

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the formulated questions were fact‑specific and did not raise issues of great general or public importance, the defendant did not satisfy the high threshold under the 'or otherwise' limb of s22(1)(b), and the matter is appropriately left for the Court of Final Appeal to consider itself; indemnity costs were awarded to the plaintiff because the defendant insisted on an oral hearing but advanced no oral arguments, causing wasted costs.
16 Apr 2015

PENTA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)

Citation

PENTA INVESTMENT ADVISERS LTD v. ALLIED WELI DEVELOPMENT LTD (formerly known as HENNABUN CAPITAL GROUP LTD)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1656/2012

The defendant failed to show a good reason for a stay: its appeal was only arguable and not shown to have a high likelihood of success, and no evidentiary basis was provided to show the appeal would render enforcement nugatory; accordingly the stay application was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
7 Jul 2003

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV13/2002

The appeal is dismissed because the Arbitrator's construction of the Deed and Undertaking — that it effected a reduction of commercial GFA in exchange for residential increase and premium — does not appear to be obviously wrong in the commercial and factual matrix; under the high threshold applicable to one‑off disputes the Court will not grant leave absent an obviously wrong construction, so leave was properly refused and the appeal fails.
11 Jun 2002

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR

Citation

SWIRE PROPERTIES LTD. AND OTHERS v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HKSAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV1058/2001

The Court of Appeal upheld the judge below: the arbitrator did not err in law in finding the Deed and Undertaking obligated Swire to procure surrender of 1,974,000 sq ft of commercial GFA and that the reduced commercial limit took effect on the agreement in 1986; Swire failed to demonstrate a plain legal error or a very strongly arguable point and had raised a new, unarguable contention which had not been advanced at arbitration, therefore leave to appeal was properly refused and the appeal dismissed.
21 Sept 1995

DENE HUNT v. GORDON WILLIAM FISHER

Citation

DENE HUNT v. GORDON WILLIAM FISHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV38/1995

Clause 1 of the deed is arguably ambiguous on whether the covenant is personal or on behalf of the trustee; because resolution requires factual matrix and disputed facts on capacity/agency and delivery in escrow, summary judgment under Order 14 was inappropriate and the defendant must be given unconditional leave to defend; appeal allowed and judgment set aside.
7 Oct 1994

BEACON HEIGHTS (MANAGEMENT) LTD. v. LEUNG PING HUNG, ANTONIO AND OTHERS

Citation

BEACON HEIGHTS (MANAGEMENT) LTD. v. LEUNG PING HUNG, ANTONIO AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3570/1991

Clause 27 was to be construed as imposing an obligation on the original owner (who signed the Deed) to give a charge and that obligation binds successors in title who take with notice; equity will "treat as done that which ought to be done" so the manager may enforce the charge and register a memorial at the Land Office despite successors not having signed any instrument of charge.
26 Jun 1989

GOODWELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED v. BASESMART DEVELOPMENT LIMITED AND ANOTHER

Citation

GOODWELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LIMITED v. BASESMART DEVELOPMENT LIMITED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6310/1988

Where a party seeks to recover costs in accordance with a pre-existing contractual agreement as to such costs, the court is not precluded by statutory provisions governing costs awards from ordering those costs on the contractual basis, including solicitor-and-own-client/full indemnity basis.
24 Nov 1988

PAK LAN CHING alias PAK SHUET CHING v. CROWN GREAT COMPANY LIMITED

Citation

PAK LAN CHING alias PAK SHUET CHING v. CROWN GREAT COMPANY LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2253/1988

The habendum's explicit statement that the premises were to be held by the parties as joint tenants controlled over the inartistic assignment language; accordingly the Deed of Gift dated 27 June 1977 was effective to create a joint tenancy and the purchaser's title objection was overruled; additionally, substantive originating summons should be listed for hearing in open court.
12 Jan 1978

SYLVIA SETO v. MODY HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

SYLVIA SETO v. MODY HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1811/1976

Lease was validly forfeited for non‑payment of rent and for voluntary waste, but the court granted equitable relief against forfeiture because rent and mesne profits had been paid into court; relief is conditional on the defendant obtaining Building Authority consent or making required alterations; the Deed of Covenant did not create an enforceable right to a 15‑year tenancy or oblige the plaintiff to grant a further lease, so the defendant's counterclaim for possession and specific performance fails.