Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction of written agreement

Legal area

Court

4 May 2021

DING SHU JU v. CHU SAI KEUNG

Citation

[2021] HKCA 626
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV185/2016

The appeal is allowed and the trial judgment set aside because the trial judge failed to consider clause III of the contemporaneous Restructuring Agreement — a clause that, on its proper construction, arguably imposed an obligation on the investors to share company liabilities according to share proportions. That omission materially affected key factual and legal conclusions (characterisation of transfers and running account). Other grounds (partnership argument and PRC judgment binding) failed because parties conducted as direct shareholders and the PRC judgment issue was not pleaded or prov…
26 Mar 2012

陳淑珍及另一人 v. 陳玉珍

Citation

陳淑珍及另一人 v. 陳玉珍
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3460/2008

The plaintiffs' application to vary the nisi costs order is dismissed because the defendant succeeded overall and the contested defences and counterclaims were not sufficiently discrete to justify apportionment or depriving the defendant of costs; no unreasonable or unnecessary conduct by the defendant was found that would warrant varying the nisi order, which therefore became absolute and the defendant is entitled to costs taxed with certificate for counsel and her own costs taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.
30 Sept 1999

FULL LINK ENTERPRISES LTD. v. FRESHFIELDS (a Firm)

Citation

FULL LINK ENTERPRISES LTD. v. FRESHFIELDS (a Firm)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10723/1998

There is a real and material dispute of fact as to what the stakeholder agreement comprises and therefore the matter is not appropriate for determination under O.14A; accordingly the defendant must be given unconditional leave to defend and the dismissal under O.14 should be set aside while the dismissal under O.14A is affirmed.
29 Jan 1988

BEST SHARP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LUCKY SHOE REPAIRING AND KEY DUPLICATION CENTRE

Citation

BEST SHARP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LUCKY SHOE REPAIRING AND KEY DUPLICATION CENTRE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV139/1987

The agreement reserved possession to the grantor, conferred rights of entry and retention of keys, and did not confer exclusive possession on the defendant; therefore it created at most a licence and not a tenancy, so the one‑month notice and order for possession were valid.
16 May 1983

LAM WA LEUNG v. SO CHUNG SHEK

Citation

LAM WA LEUNG v. SO CHUNG SHEK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3818/1982

The written 'Lum See' agreement, on its face, was unambiguous and intended to have immediate binding effect; the defendant failed to discharge the burden of proving a collateral oral agreement making it conditional on his father's approval; the telephone conversation at end of August 1981 amounted to a mutual release of rights and obligations, so the plaintiff's claim for enforcement fails.
1 Apr 1971

HO HAU v. CHAN KWAI TONG

Citation

HO HAU v. CHAN KWAI TONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1008/1970

The agreement was a management/licence contract, not a tenancy or sham; Clause 7 and the parties' recognition that a lease could not be granted established intention. The Defendant breached Clauses 1, 9 and 16; accordingly the Plaintiff is entitled to possession of the portion of the premises owned or possessed by the Plaintiff (excluding land formerly under the Crown permit) and to damages equivalent to the guaranteed monthly payments up to judgment.

Hong Kong Case Law

DING SHU JU v. CHU SAI KEUNG

陳淑珍及另一人 v. 陳玉珍

FULL LINK ENTERPRISES LTD. v. FRESHFIELDS (a Firm)

BEST SHARP DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LUCKY SHOE REPAIRING AND KEY DUPLICATION CENTRE

LAM WA LEUNG v. SO CHUNG SHEK

HO HAU v. CHAN KWAI TONG