Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Delivery

Legal area

Court

20 May 2016

SIMPSON MARINE LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL M/V “MAGGIE” (an “AZIMUT 43 PLUS” HULL NO: 568 HIN:IT-AZI 43568E010 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP NO: 139475 ENGINE NO 46953382 / 46951949

Citation

SIMPSON MARINE LTD v. THE OWNERS OF THE SHIP OR VESSEL M/V “MAGGIE” (an “AZIMUT 43 PLUS” HULL NO: 568 HIN:IT-AZI 43568E010 CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP NO: 139475 ENGINE NO 46953382 / 46951949
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ171/2011

Clause 3 was construed to require arrival of the Yacht in Hong Kong by 12 July 2010, not delivery to the buyer; commissioning after arrival required a reasonable period (found to be one to two months); optional VMA (joysticks) was a luxury/optional item and not a condition entitling rescission; the Yacht was in a deliverable state and placed at the buyer's disposition on 18 August 2010; accordingly Simpson Marine was not in breach for late delivery and Luan's claims were dismissed; Simpson Marine's counterclaim against Luan succeeded in the sum adjudicated.
20 May 2016

LUAN GANG v. SIMPSON MARINE LTD

Citation

LUAN GANG v. SIMPSON MARINE LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA107/2011

LUAN GANG v. SIMPSON MARINE LTD
11 Oct 2011

DRAGON PEARL NIGHT CLUB RESTAURANT LTD v. LEUNG WAN KEE SHIPYARD LIMITED

Citation

DRAGON PEARL NIGHT CLUB RESTAURANT LTD v. LEUNG WAN KEE SHIPYARD LIMITED
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV277/2010

The Agreement was a contract for the sale of a completed vessel with delivery and transfer of property to occur after specified sea trials and handover; the contract does not clearly express an intention to pass property at stages during construction and therefore, applying the Sale of Goods rules, property did not pass to the purchaser during construction; appeals dismissed.
18 Oct 2010

BLISS ELECTRONIC (HK) CO LTD v. BILLWIN LTD

Citation

BLISS ELECTRONIC (HK) CO LTD v. BILLWIN LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ34/2009

Billwin failed to prove defectiveness or short delivery and therefore had no right to deduct; Bliss Electronic validly withheld the remaining 6,693 pieces under s44 Sale of Goods Ordinance and validly accepted Billwin's repudiation after giving time; Bliss Electronic entitled to recover price of goods sold and delivered and price of undelivered goods as damages; Billwin's counterclaim for late delivery was dismissed for failure to prove breach, causation and quantum.
10 Jul 2009

MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD

Citation

MG OVERSEAS LTD v. YARNTEX MILL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3303/2007

The court found objective documentary evidence established two separate contracts with distinct terms and delivery dates; payment by cheque on 22 June 2007 made the first contract's delivery due by 6 July 2007; Defendant failed and unjustifiably refused to deliver and effectively aborted performance; Plaintiff entitled to refund of paid sums with interest and costs; Defendant's arguments of one contract, export problems and Plaintiff's changing instructions did not excuse failure to deliver and were rejected.
18 Dec 2006

LONGRAND ELECTRONICS LTD v. TOP UNIVERSAL LTD

Citation

LONGRAND ELECTRONICS LTD v. TOP UNIVERSAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2978/2005

Plaintiff gave sufficient notice and proved non-delivery; under the terms of the delivery note and applicable principles the defendant had the duty to ensure delivery and to adduce evidence of due delivery; the defendant failed to prove delivery, so the goods are treated as lost and plaintiff is entitled to recover the proven cost of the goods (HK$179,400) plus costs.
16 Dec 2006

NAN HAI SHI JIU AND OTHERS v. NEWRY LTD

Citation

NAN HAI SHI JIU AND OTHERS v. NEWRY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4651/2004

Defendant's clear instruction to ship to a 40‑foot container (fax 20 Sept 2003) constituted an effective direction and not a waiver entitling defendant to refuse balance; defendant was liable to pay for the excess 5,760 pairs under the first PO; defendant accepted the goods under the second PO by part payment and subsequent silence and is liable for the balance of the contract price.
5 Dec 2006

HEADWIN ENGINEERING LTD v. KINGSPAN CHINA LTD

Citation

HEADWIN ENGINEERING LTD v. KINGSPAN CHINA LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6328/2005

The court accepted the expert and employee evidence that the goods were damaged by rough handling, insufficient packing and improper stowage at stuffing prior to loading; accordingly s.34(1) was inapplicable, the defendant was liable, and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for HK$470,073.60 with interest and costs (subject to a limited deduction for examination-in-chief).
14 Sept 2006

SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD

Citation

SOUTHWEST PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER v. CHEUNG RONG PLASTIC MIRROR CO, LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4708/2003

The court found on the evidence that the 1st Plaintiff was not a party to the 5th and 6th contracts and therefore lacked standing to sue for breach of those contracts; the plaintiffs failed to prove the goods were defective because the expert tests used unrealistic conditions (90°C water) and thus had no probative value; accordingly the plaintiffs' claims were dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim against the 2nd Plaintiff for unpaid invoices (HK$42,778.20) succeeded.
21 Aug 2006

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA

Citation

HKSAR v. MOHAMED HASSAN ISMAIL EMARA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC90/2004

The judge's findings that the applicant participated in a joint enterprise, knew or believed the notes were counterfeit and had no lawful excuse are supported by the trial evidence (including admissions in the record of interview) and are unassailable on appeal; the proffered fresh evidence would not alter those findings and counsel conduct complaints do not demonstrate unfair trial, therefore leave to adduce further evidence is refused and leave to appeal is dismissed.