Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Contractual certainty

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2014

SIDEPEC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHEUNG HING

Citation

SIDEPEC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHEUNG HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA829/2010

The judge accepted Cheung's account of the contractual terms, found Sidepec (through Wong) repudiated the agreement by failing to complete within the essential time agreed, held that Cheung validly terminated the contract and was entitled to a declaration of termination and forfeiture of the sums received (HK$380,000) as deposit; accordingly Sidepec's claim for specific performance was dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant on the counterclaim.
29 May 2013

LUCKY ZONE HOLDINGS LTD v. WINNING BEAUTY INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

LUCKY ZONE HOLDINGS LTD v. WINNING BEAUTY INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA784/2012

The court held that the defendants' asserted prior oral term was inherently unbelievable and inconsistent with the commercial context and the express entire agreement clause and clause 8.2 granting the noteholder absolute discretion; the alleged term was too vague to form a binding obligation and there was no evidence of post-contractual conduct amounting to waiver or estoppel; therefore there was no genuine dispute of fact and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff in both actions.
10 Jan 2005

YU KAM POR v. NEW CENTRAL LTD

Citation

YU KAM POR v. NEW CENTRAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ7038/2002

The court found on the facts that the deceased only intended to sell a small portion (about 300 sq.ft.), but the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had actual knowledge of that mistake. The buy-back option was not validly exercised (no credible proof of payment of HK$100) and the buy-back agreement was uncertain as drafted. Therefore rectification, specific performance or rescission were not available and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
20 Feb 2001

JAMES WILFRED ALFRED SOULSBY v. TOTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LTD.

Citation

JAMES WILFRED ALFRED SOULSBY v. TOTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ14943/2000

The Court found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and that the first sick certificate (D4a) was not genuine; the defendant had decided to dismiss the plaintiff on 16 October 1994 for prolonged unauthorised absence and misconduct, that the commission clause in the Employment Letter was too uncertain to found a claim and the plaintiff produced no proof that commission conditions had been satisfied; accordingly the dismissal was lawful and the plaintiff's claims fail, but the defendant's counterclaim of HK$35,220 is payable subject to a set-off of HK$10,982 acknowledged by the defendant.
18 Feb 1983

SUSAN CHAN PUI WAN AND ANOTHER v. THOMAS YOUNG

Citation

SUSAN CHAN PUI WAN AND ANOTHER v. THOMAS YOUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP15/1983

Clause 4(i) is too uncertain because the 15%–25% margin is a substantial indeterminate range; the clause is not capable of yielding a determinable rental rate and the court will not supply machinery to make an unworkable formula enforceable; therefore a declaration was granted to that effect.

Hong Kong Case Law

SIDEPEC INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHEUNG HING

LUCKY ZONE HOLDINGS LTD v. WINNING BEAUTY INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER

YU KAM POR v. NEW CENTRAL LTD

JAMES WILFRED ALFRED SOULSBY v. TOTAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL LTD.

SUSAN CHAN PUI WAN AND ANOTHER v. THOMAS YOUNG