Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Election

Legal area

Court

13 Feb 2023

STAREX DEVELOPMENT LTD v. YAU SO CHING as the administrator of the estate of YEUNG LEUNG CHUEN, the deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKDC 96
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2372/2021

Clause 10 must be read as permitting the purchaser to elect to terminate under clause 10(b) on or before the completion date (28 April 2020) where clause 10(1) is engaged; there is no basis to imply a term making 30 July 2019 the deadline or to imply time to be of the essence as at that date because such an implied term would contradict the express words of clause 10(b) and is unnecessary for business efficacy; the plaintiff's post-30 July conduct did not amount to a clear and unequivocal election, waiver or estoppel precluding termination; plaintiff validly terminated before completion and i…
19 Jan 2018

CCM EARTH LTD AND OTHERS v. ALFA GCM LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 85
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1210/2016

The default judgment is set aside conditional on payment into court of HK$1,000,000 because the defendant has shown a realistic prospect of successfully defending the claim on matters of oral credit, inducement and fraud which require trial, while the defendant's unexplained delay and participation in the Order 37 assessment justify imposing a payment-in condition.
7 Dec 2011

LIU PING KUEN v. LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS

Citation

LIU PING KUEN v. LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA73/2011

The court found as a matter of pleadings and chronology that LPK's adverse possession of Portions 1C and 1D could not have acquired the 20-year possessory title before the Applicants' 1998 action and was therefore plainly unsustainable; additionally LPK's consistent omission of any adverse possession claim to Portion Z in successive drafts, amendments and affirmations amounted to an unequivocal election to abandon that claim, making its revival in the 2011 Action an abuse of process — accordingly the challenged claims were struck out and partial judgment entered for the Applicants.
7 Dec 2011

LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS v. LIU PING KUEN

Citation

LIU KAM HOI AND OTHERS v. LIU PING KUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6728/1998

The court struck out claims to Portions 1C and 1D because the pleaded dates of adverse possession meant the 20-year period had not run at the time of earlier proceedings making those claims plainly unsustainable; the court struck out the claim to Portion Z because LPK's conduct and amended pleadings amounted to a clear and unequivocal election to abandon that claim, and its revival in the 2011 Action constituted an abuse of process.
10 Aug 2009

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON) also known as KASIKORNBANK PUBLIC CO LTD

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON) also known as KASIKORNBANK PUBLIC CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2008

The Court allowed the appeal: it found Mr Ting breached his fiduciary duties and lacked actual or implied authority; TFB could not rely on apparent authority because it was put on inquiry and had sought evidence of authority (and the Exco minute was unreliable); accordingly the Switch Transaction could be set aside and TFB was accountable under knowing receipt/constructive trust; judgment entered for Akai for US$22,541,332 with compound interest and costs.
31 Jul 2008

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON)

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL59/2004

The court partially allowed the variation: it disallowed the successful defendant's costs attributable to the one day of evidence by Mr Pakorn and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs of the discrete Thai law issue (including expert evidence and two court days) because that issue was wholly unnecessary and caused significant cost and time; otherwise costs of the action and counterclaim remain to the defendant. The court rejected a broader filleting of costs absent clear discrete unnecessary issues.
26 May 2008

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON)

Citation

AKAI HOLDINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v. THANAKHARN KASIKORN THAI CHAMKAT (MAHACHON)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL59/2004

Although Mr Ting acted in breach of fiduciary duty in procuring Akai to assume Singer's indebtedness, the defendant bank did not have actual knowledge and reasonably relied upon Ting's apparent authority; the bank therefore is not liable in knowing receipt or knowing assistance and the Loan Agreement and Share Pledge Agreement are valid and enforceable, entitling the bank to retain sale proceeds and to prove its adjudicated claim.
14 Feb 2007

NG CHOI SANG t/a CHEUNG KONG CONSTRUCTION CO v. CHU YU TIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

NG CHOI SANG t/a CHEUNG KONG CONSTRUCTION CO v. CHU YU TIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1922/2005

The limitation defence and election argument were not plain and obvious; the pleaded construction that repayment was conditional on demand and possible forbearance were reasonably arguable and therefore the court should not strike out the re-amended claim or allow the interlocutory appeal; prior interlocutory rulings (Master Ho) also militated against relitigation of the limitation point without appeal.
2 Nov 2004

SURSON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHUI HING (NG LUN) CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SURSON DEVELOPMENT LTD v. SHUI HING (NG LUN) CONSTRUCTION LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT72/2000

Because the plaintiff sued and obtained judgment against the 1st Defendant, who on the plaintiff's own pleading was the alleged agent of the 2nd Defendant, the plaintiff elected to pursue the agent; that judgment therefore operates as a bar to proceedings against the alleged principal (the 2nd Defendant) while it subsists. The claim against the 2nd Defendant is also scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process and must be struck out.
30 May 2001

AU YEUNG KUN AND ANOTHER v. GREENFIELD PROPERTY LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

AU YEUNG KUN AND ANOTHER v. GREENFIELD PROPERTY LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1024/1999

The default judgment was irregular because the plaintiffs failed to prove that service brought notice to the 3rd defendant (partners) and thus the 3rd defendant was entitled to set the judgment aside without the court going into full merits; alternatively, the 3rd defendant demonstrated a meritorious defence with a real prospect of success (including potential election by plaintiffs), so the appeal was dismissed.