Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Course of dealing

Legal area

Court

8 Apr 2025

BEST FOODSTUFF LTD v. MIUMI INTERNATIONAL FOOD COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 464
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2565/2022

The Statement of Claim failed to plead the essential provenance and terms of the alleged contracts; the plaintiff did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that any enforceable contracts existed or that the defendant ordered, accepted delivery of or became obliged to pay for the Subject Food Products. The absence of contemporaneous records, material inconsistencies in witnesses' accounts, evidence that defendant purchased through Century Billion, and lack of authority of drivers to accept delivery meant the conduct relied on was not unequivocally referable only to contracts between the…
21 Jul 2011

MEDIATEK INCORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. MORRISON EXPRESS CORP. LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MEDIATEK INCORPORATION AND ANOTHER v. MORRISON EXPRESS CORP. LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ153/2009

The court held that the 2nd Defendant had not proven it was acting as agent of the Plaintiffs and the available evidence (including the timing of appointments and the Letter of Indemnity) indicated D2 acted as principal when engaging D3; accordingly D2 is vicariously liable for D3's negligence. Liability is established; quantum remains to be assessed and issues as to the applicability and reasonableness of any limitation clauses are triable.
1 Dec 2010

4077571 CANADA INC. t/a KRISTOM CANADA v. PINE TRADING CO LTD

Citation

4077571 CANADA INC. t/a KRISTOM CANADA v. PINE TRADING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1272/2006

CAD objectively meant payment before release of title documents; no binding oral agreement or implied term altering CAD was proved; plaintiff had given reasonable notice to revert to CAD; defendant refused delivery and thereby repudiated the contracts; plaintiff validly accepted repudiation and is entitled to damages of US$162,928.01 (or HKD equivalent).
9 Nov 2010

GOOD PROFIT METAL SURFACE TREATMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. KWOK KWONG YU, DAVID

Citation

GOOD PROFIT METAL SURFACE TREATMENT CO LTD AND OTHERS v. KWOK KWONG YU, DAVID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2237/2008

The parties had a well-established practice of treating HKD and RMB at par which was applied to the buy-out valuation; the Defendant accepted the valuation and cashed the cheque and therefore was paid in full on that basis; he had no legal right to retain the company’s accounting documents by way of lien because the company was not a party nor indebted to him; accordingly Plaintiffs succeed, counterclaim fails, and Defendant must return documents and indemnify for losses.
25 Feb 2004

TELEPOINT DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD v. DAILY GLORY TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRADING LTD

Citation

TELEPOINT DISTRIBUTION PTE LTD v. DAILY GLORY TELECOMMUNICATIONS TRADING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ463/2003

On the facts and the parties' established course of dealing, delivery of the goods to the Singapore freight forwarder (or its collecting agent Corporate Cargo acting as agent for the buyer) constituted effective delivery under the parties' FOB Singapore term, so the property risk in the lost goods passed to the buyer at that point; the defendant failed to prove the goods were lost before delivery to the carrier in Singapore; accordingly judgment entered for the plaintiff and the defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
31 Jul 2001

Kithan Ltd. v. A & G International Cargo Ltd.

Citation

Kithan Ltd. v. A & G International Cargo Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ14253/2000

Plaintiffs failed to prove negligence by the defendant or its agents in the local carriage; the defendants used a reputable carrier and there was no obvious sign of tampering that would have put a reasonable carrier on notice; the airway bill and standard terms did not govern the local land leg or were not incorporated; therefore defendant not liable and claim dismissed.
4 Dec 2000

SHUN CHEONG ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

SHUN CHEONG ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CO. LTD. v. WAI SHUN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV531/2000

Burrell J was entitled to conclude on the material before him that there was a question of fact whether a pay-when-paid term existed and whether the defendant had been paid by Gammon; given that finding, the Court of Appeal will not disturb the judge\'s order granting unconditional leave to defend and the appeal must be dismissed.
22 Nov 2000

KITH MUTUAL BENEFITS INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. STACK ELECTRONICS FAR EAST LTD.

Citation

KITH MUTUAL BENEFITS INTERNATIONAL LTD. v. STACK ELECTRONICS FAR EAST LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ123/1997

Wald and Loyd failed to discharge the burden of proving that property passed to them before the collision because the bills were to the order of the shippers and there was no credible documentary or oral evidence of a binding course of dealing or payment before loss; their claims are dismissed. Sunlight proved on the balance of probabilities that it had retained jus disponendi by withholding original bills until payment and therefore the property had not passed to its buyer at the time of the collision; Sunlight has title to sue and succeeds for 70% of its invoice value.
13 Apr 2000

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, HONG KONG BRANCH v. YENWIN INVESTMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, HONG KONG BRANCH v. YENWIN INVESTMENTS LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6014/1999

The plaintiff established a contractual and documentary basis (facility letter, undertaking and security agreement) and demonstrated a consistent course of dealing authorising debiting of interest from the bills account to the current account; the undertaking expressly permitted compound interest; the plaintiff's witness evidence and documents were accepted and the defendant failed to adduce oral evidence or successfully challenge calculations, therefore judgment for the plaintiff for the claimed principals and interest was entered.
3 Aug 1999

MARUBENI HONG KONG LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINSEN TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER

Citation

MARUBENI HONG KONG LTD. AND ANOTHER v. FINSEN TRADING LTD. AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV248/1998

The sales notes in the disputed transactions were held to be offers that were not accepted according to the parties' established system; the defendants' evidence that acceptance was not communicated (and that round chops did not signify acceptance) was preferred, part performance was not proved to have taken place pursuant to the contracts, and the appellate court upheld the trial judge's factual findings and dismissed the appeal.