Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages and quantum

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2015

FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v. YEUNG HIU CHONG t/a FINETEC METAL WORKS

Citation

FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v. YEUNG HIU CHONG t/a FINETEC METAL WORKS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ577/2013

Court found a binding partly oral/partly written Agreement made in September 2008 (the unsigned Sub-Sub-Contract was not binding), that the defendant breached by failing to deliver components and complete installation per the plaintiff/Gammon schedule and lacked funds to finish the works, that the delay and inability to perform were serious and justified the plaintiff's termination; accordingly judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
20 Dec 2006

TANG WAI MAN v. FOTOSKY INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

TANG WAI MAN v. FOTOSKY INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA456/2002

The Letter of Agreement was not a binding lease because it expressly contemplated execution of a formal Tenancy Agreement in the landlord's standard form and formed part of ongoing 'subject to contract' negotiations; additionally the intended tenant was to be Best Time so the individual plaintiff lacked proper locus, and the defendant was entitled to reject/ rescind in light of the agent's representations and the plaintiff's conduct; accordingly plaintiff's claim fails.
25 Jul 2003

PREAMBLE PROPERTIES FINANCE LTD v. ITALIAN MOTORS (SALES & SERVICE) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

PREAMBLE PROPERTIES FINANCE LTD v. ITALIAN MOTORS (SALES & SERVICE) LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2135/2000

Court found on credibility and probabilities that Ma was 100% negligent for turning into the scrap-yard entrance without adequate lookout or signal and that Italian Motors' driver was not negligent; plaintiff failed to prove loss of hire and no-claims loss so awarded only nominal damages of HKD 100; Italian Motors having paid for repairs and granted a trade-in discount is entitled to recover contribution from Ma under Cap.377 but only to the extent the payments are not excessive, fixed at HKD 458,180 for repairs and HKD 150,000 for diminution (total HKD 608,180) with interest and costs.
24 Jul 2001

TSANG HING FUNG AND ANOTHER v. MIU YIN CHI PAUL

Citation

TSANG HING FUNG AND ANOTHER v. MIU YIN CHI PAUL
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4017/2001

The Incorporated Owners, not the Plaintiffs, bore statutory responsibility for maintaining the main roof under the Building Management Ordinance; the Plaintiffs therefore had no contractual or tortious duty to repair the roof or the premises and the Defendant was not entitled to unilaterally vacate and repudiate the tenancy. Judgment entered for the Plaintiffs for a net sum of HK$126,411 with interest at 8% p.a. from 1 February 1999; the Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
8 Nov 2000

WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. TYCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD.

Citation

WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. TYCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT40/1999

The court found a binding contract whereby Tyco stepped into Wo Hing's subcontract on terms including an $80,000,000 contract price (subject to adjustments), a 3% fee to Wo Hing deducted from monthly valuations, Tyco's obligation to fund the electrical works and pay on a back-to-back pay-when-paid basis; Tyco repudiated by failing to provide necessary funding, Wo Hing validly accepted the repudiation, resumed and completed the works, and is entitled to damages to put it in the position it would have been in (including a reasonable 10% profit shortfall, recovery of the lost 3% fee less deducti…
28 Dec 1972

LO TIM v. HANG LEE CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO TIM v. HANG LEE CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA551/1972

The plaintiff's claims were dismissed because the written contract allocated responsibility for materials and the hiring/paying of workers to the plaintiff, there was no evidence supporting separate recovery for those items or for lost profits for lathes, and the first defendant properly exercised the contractual right to take back the work after warnings for insufficient workers; accounting showed the plaintiff had been overpaid and owed the first defendant $22,980.39 which was awarded.

Hong Kong Case Law

FAMTECK ENGINEERING LTD v. YEUNG HIU CHONG t/a FINETEC METAL WORKS

TANG WAI MAN v. FOTOSKY INVESTMENT LTD

PREAMBLE PROPERTIES FINANCE LTD v. ITALIAN MOTORS (SALES & SERVICE) LTD AND ANOTHER

TSANG HING FUNG AND ANOTHER v. MIU YIN CHI PAUL

WO HING ENGINEERING LTD. v. TYCO ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION (HONG KONG) LTD.

LO TIM v. HANG LEE CONSTRUCTION CO AND ANOTHER