Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Damages for delay

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2025

富嘉大廈業主立案法團 v. CHAN YEE SHEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKLdT 73
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM53/2023

On the facts the Tribunal found respondents did not unreasonably refuse access; the canopies, house structure and clutter did not prevent erection of scaffolding; the IO failed to give reasonable notice and contributed to delay by imposing additional written undertakings and a litigious approach; the IO failed to prove that additional costs were caused by respondents and the claimed waterproofing cost had not been incurred — claim dismissed.
16 Sept 2022

中僑貨倉大廈業主立案法團對新旺參茸藥業行有限公司

Citation

[2022] HKLdT 39
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM151/2019

Applicant's claim for damages is dismissed because the tribunal finds respondent's refusal to permit access was substantially justified: applicant repeatedly avoided committing to re-laying insulation/tiles removed by the works so did not satisfy clause 16's preconditions (minimise disturbance and make good damage); the respondent's insistence on a commitment was a lawful basis to withhold consent and the applicant therefore cannot recover the claimed delay costs.
9 Nov 2021

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD 對蘇世昌

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 70
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM247/2018

Respondent was not misled into carrying out works, had no legal basis to withhold or deduct the contributions, and unlawfully obstructed access; therefore respondent must pay the outstanding contributions and interest, compensate applicant for delay-related additional costs, and a mandatory order is granted permitting access to complete the common works.
9 Nov 2021

RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD 對蘇世昌

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 70
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM126/2019

The resolutions of the special owners' meetings and the DMC obliged the respondent to pay the specified instalments; the manager adequately disclosed tender documents; the respondent unjustifiably refused and obstructed access causing delay and recoverable additional costs; interest at 1.5% per month and collection charges under the DMC are enforceable; consequently the applicant's monetary claims and a mandatory order for entry are justified and granted.
27 Dec 2017

LIMING CAPITAL LTD v. CLSA LTD

Citation

LIMING CAPITAL LTD v. CLSA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2055/2008

The court found on the evidence that a verbal agreement of about 8 October 2007 existed providing for a 50% split; the defendant's late reduction to 40% in the 17 October 2007 written agreement was procured by illegitimate pressure amounting to economic duress in the circumstances and therefore that reduction was of no legal effect; the share payment variation used the placement price as the valuation basis and the defendant's obligation to transfer arose when it could effect transfer (found to be 13 December 2007); defendant's delayed delivery caused quantifiable loss and plaintiff entitled…
10 Jan 2008

CIITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. CRYSTAL ARM LTD

Citation

CIITYBASE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LTD v. CRYSTAL ARM LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV6/2007

Under the DMC clause B1 the manager had the necessary right to enter the respondent's roof and install anchorages to clamp a gondola for external wall maintenance; the respondent could not impose unilateral conditions such as payment for RSE inspections or an indemnity, and was liable to reimburse the applicant for additional contractor costs caused by its refusal/delay.
21 Feb 2000

ROE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

ROE INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. UNIONIX DEVELOPMENT LTD
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV14/1999

The consent order of 28 May 1997, viewed objectively, resolved the outstanding disputes between the parties and operated to preclude Prince Good and Unionix from pursuing damages against Roe for delay; the technical invalidity of Roe's interpleader originating summons did not justify the Court of Appeal's orders because the irregularity was waived or cured by the parties' consent and by Order 2 r.1(1); accordingly Yam J's orders dismissing the applications to lift the stay and for costs should be restored and the Court of Appeal's judgment quashed.
29 Jun 1993

LAM TAM YI AND ANOTHER v. CHAK WAI MAN

Citation

LAM TAM YI AND ANOTHER v. CHAK WAI MAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3482/1991

The provisional sale and purchase agreement was intended to be and was an immediately binding contract despite later solicitor correspondence headed "Subject to Contract"; the two letters operated unilaterally and did not effect a consensual rescission, therefore the purchaser was entitled to a decree of specific performance with enquiries as to title, interest and damages for delay.
27 Mar 1982

HAY NIEN CO LTD v. THE PROSPERITY INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

HAY NIEN CO LTD v. THE PROSPERITY INSURANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2925/1980

The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and refused to strike out the Statement of Claim because the claim was not obviously unsustainable; contested issues of notice, extensions, termination and the circumstances of the winding-up required factual inquiry and proper pleading; the plaintiff was permitted to amend the Statement of Claim.
YU MAN v. T.L.IP & CO (a firm)

Citation

YU MAN v. T.L.IP & CO (a firm)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ459/1984

The strike-out application was dismissed insofar as the defendant sought to strike out the whole action because the pleaded claim for loss of rental over a 19-month delay disclosed triable issues of negligence; however, the particular claim for $46,675.30 for mental suffering disclosed no cause of action on the particulars and was struck out with a substitution of general damages for that head.