Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enforcement of settlement

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2024

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2630
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2531/2017

Mr Ng failed to establish duress, undue influence or any vitiating factor sufficient to vitiate his consent; there was no evidence the Defendants had actual, imputed or constructive knowledge of any undue influence by Mr Ng's lawyers; Mr Ng had opportunity to reflect and affirmed the settlement; therefore the Schedule is a binding contract and the Defendants' application to enforce it must be granted (with the completion date varied).
14 Jul 2022

譚對歐陽

Citation

[2022] HKFC 145
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3445/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant had no real or reasonable prospect of success, the judge was not biased, the 2021 summons could not lawfully vary the lump‑sum arrangement or affect third‑party rights under s11 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, and the applicant's conduct warranted a costs order for the underlying summonses.
16 Apr 2020

WONG YEE CHUK v. LO PO WAI, HARRY AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 600
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3366/2016

On an objective appraisal of the correspondence and conduct, the parties had not reached a concluded binding settlement of the four proceedings because essential ancillary matters and mechanics remained to be agreed and it would have been apparent to reasonable solicitors that further agreement was required; accordingly the summonses to give effect to the alleged settlement were dismissed and costs were ordered against the applicants.
3 Nov 2016

YAN HOW YEE v. YU KIN SANG PAUL AND OTHERS

Citation

YAN HOW YEE v. YU KIN SANG PAUL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1069/2008

The appeal was dismissed because the court held the original action had not concluded for the purposes of Order 62, rule 9D(1) given the real possibility the defendants' defence to enforcement of the alleged settlement would succeed and thus there was a likelihood of further orders; accordingly taxation was properly stayed and Rule 9D(4) did not permit taxation.
22 Jul 2013

RE LEUNG WING FAI

Citation

RE LEUNG WING FAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3332/2013

The Tomlin order schedule constituted a full and final settlement requiring payment of $160,000; that obligation was enforced by a subsequent consent order; the statutory demand remained unsatisfied; the debtor raised no valid defence despite being represented when the agreements and orders were made; therefore a bankruptcy order was justified and made.
8 Nov 1999

LEUNG YEE AND ANOTHER v. NG YIU MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG YEE AND ANOTHER v. NG YIU MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7462/1998

The court held that the plaintiffs did not comply with the Further Undertaking in the consent order (failure to add the specified wording/design within the required time), therefore the condition precedent to payment of HK$6,500,000 was not satisfied and the plaintiffs were not entitled to that payment; the summons was dismissed and costs were ordered against the plaintiffs (order nisi).

Hong Kong Case Law

NG TUNG v. FULLAND INTERNATIONAL LTD

譚 對 歐陽

WONG YEE CHUK v. LO PO WAI, HARRY AND OTHERS

YAN HOW YEE v. YU KIN SANG PAUL AND OTHERS

RE LEUNG WING FAI

LEUNG YEE AND ANOTHER v. NG YIU MING AND ANOTHER

譚對歐陽