Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of indemnity

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2025

CHARM MASTER ENTERPRISES LTD v. GRAND T G GOLD HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA397/2011

Because the Company continued to participate actively and resisted interpleading despite earlier communications acknowledging entitlement to payment, and because its conduct rendered certain applications and costs unnecessary or academic, the Company must bear liability for J Thomson’s costs up to 26 February 2021 and pay the specified reserved costs; the general rule of joint and several liability applies here given the parties were co-claimants on the same payment claims and the Company did not raise a distinct separate cause excusing joint liability.
13 Sept 2024

TOP GEAR INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS v. PACM GROUP (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2347
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1999/2023

The Break Fee was a primary obligation under the Term Sheet and Deeds of Indemnity and therefore not a penalty; the factual complaints about newly imposed conditions and sabotage were not reasonably arguable on the evidence and the conditions (signed release, subordination) were within the parties' contemplation; challenged phrases were not part of the binding terms so uncertainty is irrelevant; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate for PACM on its HK$6.8m counterclaim and the plaintiffs' claim was struck out.
12 Jan 2018

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. LEE KAI CHEUNG BENNY

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 40
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3350/2016

The default judgment and charging order nisi were set aside because conflicting evidence about whether the Loan was repaid meant the court could not form any provisional view as to the probable outcome; the defendant therefore demonstrated that a trial was necessary and there was no real prejudice to the plaintiff from setting aside.
15 Nov 2016

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. YEUNG MEI CHUN

Citation

CENTRAL SOUTHWOOD LTD v. YEUNG MEI CHUN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1474/2015

Defendants demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success on the pleaded facts and affidavits; accordingly the court set aside the default judgment and, as conceded by the plaintiff, discharged the charging orders and set aside the possession order and writ. Leave was granted to defendants to file a defence and costs were awarded to the plaintiff in any event.
27 Nov 2012

MIRAMAR HOTEL & INVESTMENT CO LTD v. EXPRESS CROSS BORDER COACH MGT. CO. LTD

Citation

MIRAMAR HOTEL & INVESTMENT CO LTD v. EXPRESS CROSS BORDER COACH MGT. CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1693/2007

On the agreed facts and documentary record the plaintiff had provided the agreed consideration and was entitled to 2,000 shares and its proportionate share of revenue; none of the suggested terms met the strict tests for implication (necessity and obviousness), the alleged Deed of Indemnity had no legal effect for the purpose asserted, and the defendant's contrary contentions failed; accordingly specific relief (allotment, registration, anti‑dilution injunction), payment of revenue with credit for sums already paid, disclosure, an account and inquiry and costs were ordered.
10 Oct 2012

J. THOMSON ASSET INVESTMENT LTD v. LEE SING LEUNG, ROBIN

Citation

J. THOMSON ASSET INVESTMENT LTD v. LEE SING LEUNG, ROBIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1023/2011

Defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable triable issue under Order 14; liability under the Deed of Indemnity is established and the correct relief is interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed; the defendant's counterclaim is too remote and is struck out; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
10 Oct 2012

LEE SING LEUNG, ROBIN v. LUK WING KWONG, QUINTIN

Citation

LEE SING LEUNG, ROBIN v. LUK WING KWONG, QUINTIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1890/2010

Defendant failed to demonstrate any reasonable triable issue under Order 14; liability under the Deed of Indemnity is established; interlocutory judgment entered for damages to be assessed; defendant's counterclaim for repayment of HK$16,350,000 struck out; costs awarded to plaintiff (certificate for two counsel), to be taxed if not agreed.
7 Oct 2005

SIEGFRIED ADALBERT UNRUH v. HANS-JOERG SEEBERGER AND ANOTHER

Citation

SIEGFRIED ADALBERT UNRUH v. HANS-JOERG SEEBERGER AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV297/2004

Majority held on construction that clause 5 imposed liability on the 1st defendant to pay the special bonus if the 2nd defendant did not pay; the global settlement was monetary compensation arising from the arbitration; plaintiff had used his best endeavours; the 2nd defendant was bound to pay the special bonus by virtue of the Deed of Acknowledgement and related conduct (estoppel/assent) and accordingly the trial judgment in favor of the plaintiff was upheld (appeals dismissed).
16 Feb 1990

LOW CHUNG SONG AND ANOTHER v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD

Citation

LOW CHUNG SONG AND ANOTHER v. THE KA WAH BANK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4047/1989

Summary judgment was refused because there were multiple substantial issues and arguable defences requiring trial; clause 3(d) of the deed was properly construed to give the bank the right to uplift the deposits at any time and not to impose a duty to uplift within a reasonable time after 31 December 1984, so the plaintiffs' summary application was without merit.
19 Mar 1980

WONG KIN WAH v. GOLDEN CASTLE FINANCE CORPORATION (HK) LTD

Citation

WONG KIN WAH v. GOLDEN CASTLE FINANCE CORPORATION (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1939/1978

The judge found the plaintiff's evidence not credible, accepted that the Deed was interpreted and explained by Mr Chu and witnessed by a solicitor, and concluded the plaintiff knew the general effect of the Deed (liability exceeded $270,000). Because the plaintiff failed the heavy burden to prove non est factum and acted without reasonable care, the Deed was valid and judgment was entered for the defendant against the plaintiff and Fung Kwong.