Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages for breach of contract

Legal area

Court

10 Dec 2018

廈門新景地集團有限公司 formerly known as 廈門市鑫新景地房地產有限公司 v. ETON PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCA 941
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV158/2012

The Court ordered that D1/D2 pay 75% of the plaintiff's costs of the appeal (to be taxed if not agreed) with certificate for 4 counsel; the plaintiff may have payment out of the $3.9 million paid into court with interest after 35 days from this judgment (or until further order); the plaintiff must pay the costs of D3-5, D6 and D10 (taxed if not agreed) with certificate for 2 counsel; the plaintiff must pay costs of D7-9 and D11 up to 23 May 2014 (taxed if not agreed) with certificate for 2 counsel; the judge's first instance costs order between plaintiff and D1/D2 was set aside to the extent…
24 Jul 2017

SUNRISE ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD v. TO NGAI EARTHWARE CO LTD

Citation

SUNRISE ENTERPRISES HOLDINGS LTD v. TO NGAI EARTHWARE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1569/2015

The court awarded return of deposits, stamp duty and conveyancing costs as losses flowing naturally from the vendor's repudiation and fixed the date for assessing loss of rental as 22 June 2016 (the date the plaintiffs accepted repudiation and judgment for damages was entered), thereby allowing the claimed rental loss and ordering defendant to pay costs of the assessment to be taxed if not agreed.
15 Dec 2016

CHUNG TIN SHUN CAESAR v. THE HONG KONG FOOTBALL ACADEMY LTD

Citation

CHUNG TIN SHUN CAESAR v. THE HONG KONG FOOTBALL ACADEMY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA26/2016

The claim was properly characterised as an action for damages for breach of the employment agreement; the Presiding Officer correctly applied contractual damages principles (including mitigation) in assessing loss using the applicant's own evidence; no error of law or procedural unfairness was shown, therefore leave to appeal was refused.
20 Apr 2016

HIN SANG HONG CO LTD v. KINGDOM OVERSEAS LTD

Citation

HIN SANG HONG CO LTD v. KINGDOM OVERSEAS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA525/2012

Clause 9 did not make adherence to the RURP an absolute condition entitling automatic termination; the plaintiff's obligation was to use best endeavours to police pricing and it did so. The defendant's purported termination on 13 February 2012 was a repudiatory breach. Plaintiff entitled to accept repudiation and recover damages: lost profits assessed at approximately HK$12,600,000 plus HK$208,672 for other losses, with interest and costs.
25 Oct 2012

YIU YAN CHE AND OTHERS v. YIU HO MING, HERMES AND OTHERS

Citation

YIU YAN CHE AND OTHERS v. YIU HO MING, HERMES AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA630/2008

Clause 5 was objectively wide enough to require the defendants to execute documents relating to their interests and claims in the proceeds of sale of KK, including the Corporate Documents and the Settlement Contract where reasonably required by YC; the defendants breached Clause 5 by refusing to procure and effect the execution of the Settlement Contract; plaintiffs entitled to interest on the Sum for the period found reasonable (15 November 2007 to 11 July 2010) less interest earned, and to specified legal costs and expenses.
20 Jul 2012

KING\'S CITY HOLDINGS LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD

Citation

KING\'S CITY HOLDINGS LTD v. DE MONSA INVESTMENTS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1714/2011

Summary judgment on liability was entered for the plaintiff because the defendant's principal defence (that its director suffered dementia) was rendered unarguable by prior binding findings amounting to issue estoppel; the vendor did not disable itself from performing and the contractual provision relied on by the defendant (cl.17(3)) does not excuse liability for the deficiency; only quantum remained to be assessed.
24 Mar 2011

HO KIN PONG AND ANOTHER v. TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO KIN PONG AND ANOTHER v. TAM KOK HUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ624/2010

The court rejected the Defendants' expert valuation for relying on inappropriate comparables (predominantly smaller two‑bed flats) and accepted the Plaintiffs' expert valuation based on suitable large three‑bed comparables and proper adjustments, finding on the balance of probabilities that the Plaintiffs suffered a loss of $330,000 plus wasted costs $22,177 with interest; judgment for Plaintiffs for $352,177 and costs to be paid by Defendants to be taxed with certificate for counsel.
7 Jul 2006

WISE POWER FAR EAST LTD AND ANOTHER v. R.A. STEGEMANN

Citation

WISE POWER FAR EAST LTD AND ANOTHER v. R.A. STEGEMANN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA283/2005

Registrar refused to strike out the core claims for unpaid wages and for damages for wrongful repudiation because they raised factual disputes requiring trial; dismissed claims against the 3rd defendant for lack of contractual privity and abuse of process; dismissed collateral damages claims D and E as not recoverable as damages; and declined to order security for costs after balancing factors, noting plaintiff was non-resident but claim was bona fide and counterclaims/related proceedings weighed against security.
28 Jun 2006

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. ELLIOT, STEWART WILLIAM GEORGE

Citation

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. ELLIOT, STEWART WILLIAM GEORGE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA12/2005

Portion of the US$11,000,000 attributable to cancellation of the 5,000,000 incentive units is taxable only to the extent it represents the value of the inducement; the Board erred in treating the entire portion attributed to the 5M Units as taxable and in fixing a 50% apportionment on the facts found. The matter is factual and best remitted to the Board under s.69(5) to determine the taxable proportion representing the inducement.
30 Dec 2004

KAMOS LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUNG HOWARD

Citation

KAMOS LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUNG HOWARD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9163/2000

The court found Kamos had good title based on the Schedule 7 documents and historical conveyances; clauses 7 and 11 validly defined the vendor's obligations and bound Mr Chan (through his agent); WPCL's requisition concerning Section E was founded on an incorrect premise and was adequately answered by the statutory declaration and documentary record; Mr Chan wrongly repudiated the SPA and was not entitled to the deposit; Kamos entitled to damages of HKD 2,073,435.60 and interest and costs.