Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counter‑claim

Legal area

Court

7 Sept 2010

CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LICO (H.K.) MANUFACTURING LTD

Citation

CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LICO (H.K.) MANUFACTURING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ716/2009

The judge accepted the Plaintiff's evidence and documentary records, rejected the Defendant's account of a cancellation stemming from Plaintiff's alleged admission, found the Defendant breached by failing to take delivery and pay, awarded the contract price, storage and interest to the Plaintiff, and dismissed the Defendant's counter-claim for failure to establish loss.
22 Jun 2006

PSI ELECTRONICS LTD v. BMS CHINA LTD

Citation

PSI ELECTRONICS LTD v. BMS CHINA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2477/2005

Defendant failed to produce credible evidence (samples, test reports or contemporaneous acceptance) to show a real prospect of success on its defences and the alleged counter-claim was unrelated and could not operate as an equitable set-off, therefore the application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed and the judgment stands.
14 Dec 2005

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. FAN KWONG TAT

Citation

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. FAN KWONG TAT
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM383/2004

The 1997 management committee resolution validly increased residential management fees to $340; the Applicant disclosed relevant material and proved entitlement to recover outstanding fees; none of the defences or newly raised procedural objections justified withholding payment; counter-claims lacked proof and are dismissed; judgment and costs awarded to Applicant.
8 Dec 2003

GLORY ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING (HK) CO LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD

Citation

GLORY ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING (HK) CO LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ13613/2000

The court preferred the plaintiff's credible documentary-supported evidence and found on the balance of probabilities that the plaintiff delivered the goods under the relevant invoice and was entitled to judgment for HK$315,700; the claimed prior practice supported interest liability; the defendant failed to prove defects or lawful entitlement to damages for cancelled/non-delivered contracts and its counterclaims were dismissed.
11 Mar 2003

NGUYEN THI KIM v. BRISFULL LTD

Citation

NGUYEN THI KIM v. BRISFULL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ8504/2001

Defendant did not follow the contractual cure/notice procedure before taking back four blocks and its witnesses' assertions about insufficient workers were unsubstantiated; re-testing was integral to the water-testing contract; Defendant breached by failing to make periodic payments, entitling Plaintiff to cease work; on assessment Plaintiff had performed approximately 85% of the contract and was entitled to pro rata payment net of prior partial payment and with specific sums awarded.
25 Feb 1978

ZETTEX LTD v. SCIENTIFIC DYEING AND FINISHING WORKS LTD

Citation

ZETTEX LTD v. SCIENTIFIC DYEING AND FINISHING WORKS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA90/1977

The court found that one batch of 151.5 pounds was defective but the plaintiff failed to prove how much of that batch was used in manufacture or to establish loss with required evidence; plaintiff therefore failed to prove conversion or recover damages and the claim was dismissed.
2 Feb 1973

CHAN HOI v. RUBY LEONG

Citation

CHAN HOI v. RUBY LEONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3006/1972

Defendant abandoned her defence and failed to properly invoke Order 14 r.10; equitable relief is available in principle where arrears and costs are paid but must be pursued by counterclaim; accordingly judgment for possession and mesne profits with costs is entered for the plaintiff, the defendant's summons is dismissed, and execution is stayed pending determination of a properly filed counterclaim subject to conditions (payment of mesne profits and timelines for filing).

Hong Kong Case Law

CORNERSTONE DEVELOPMENT LTD v. LICO (H.K.) MANUFACTURING LTD

PSI ELECTRONICS LTD v. BMS CHINA LTD

THE INCORPORATION OWNERS OF LUX THEATRE BUILDING v. FAN KWONG TAT

GLORY ELECTRICAL MANUFACTURING (HK) CO LTD v. DAYS IMPEX LTD

NGUYEN THI KIM v. BRISFULL LTD

ZETTEX LTD v. SCIENTIFIC DYEING AND FINISHING WORKS LTD

CHAN HOI v. RUBY LEONG