Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Equitable discretion

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2023

CHINNEY SHUN CHEONG BUILDING SERVICES ENGINEERING LTD (formerly known as CHINNEY E & M (MAINTENANCE) LTD) v. LO KWAI FAN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP629/2023

Because the judgment debt exceeded the property's market value, there was sufficient equity after costs, no known encumbrances or third party interests, no record of payment or other assets, and proper notice was given with the defendant absent, the court exercised its discretion to order sale of the property subject to conditions and priorities to satisfy the judgment and costs.
12 Dec 2017

AGACER JAMES C v. TANG SAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

AGACER JAMES C v. TANG SAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI916/2014

Application dismissed as to the 1st defendant: it was not equitable to disapply the limitation period because plaintiff failed to act promptly after receiving the counsel's advice in March 2014, offered no adequate explanation for the subsequent five months' delay, and the claim lacked reasonable prospects of success (serious identification and credibility problems) causing relevant prejudice to the defendant.
30 Oct 2015

NGAN YUK YIP BY CHAN CHIU SHING, HER NEXT FRIEND v. HERBAL-T (HK) LTD

Citation

NGAN YUK YIP BY CHAN CHIU SHING, HER NEXT FRIEND v. HERBAL-T (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1981/2012

The defendant's taxed costs for the 1.5 days thrown away must be deducted from the plaintiff's taxed costs and the plaintiff's lawyers must forgo any consequential shortfall and must not seek to recover that shortfall from the plaintiff; the Taxing Master is to be informed to give effect to this deduction.
27 Feb 2015

STARK MOLY LTD v. LAM FUNG

Citation

STARK MOLY LTD v. LAM FUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1581/2010

The court held that Stark Moly's single application to discharge the order and seek damages sufficed to invoke the court's power to put an end to the contract; exercised equitable discretion to discharge the prior specific performance order because enforcement or awarding damages in the full sum claimed would unjustly allow Stark Moly double recovery (option consideration plus retained value transferred into Wiseking shares); accordingly the specific performance order was discharged and judgment for damages was entered to be assessed.
11 May 2001

YIP WING HONG v. MAEDA CORPORATION

Citation

YIP WING HONG v. MAEDA CORPORATION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI518/2000

Section 27 was disapplied because the plaintiff's delay was short and explicable (serious injury and subsequent cancer and diligent repeated attempts to obtain legal aid), the plaintiff has a good arguable case supported by employees' compensation admissions and defendant's alleged prejudicial inability to defend was largely self‑inflicted given prior employees' compensation proceedings that should have prompted preservation of evidence; balancing of prejudice favoured allowing the action to proceed.
15 Nov 2000

GREEN PARK PROPERTIES LTD v. DORKU LTD

Citation

GREEN PARK PROPERTIES LTD v. DORKU LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/2000

The Court held there was an actionable misrepresentation by conduct and by the tenancy plan that the yard formed part of the property; that misrepresentation operated on the purchaser's mind and was not of minor importance; rescission was therefore justified; the contract description was insufficient to exclude the yard and the tenancy plan could be used to elucidate boundaries; the appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed.
3 Mar 1998

Godfrey Christopher Rooke and Another v. HV Construction Services Ltd.

Citation

Godfrey Christopher Rooke and Another v. HV Construction Services Ltd.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV228/1997

The Court of Appeal held the judge misapplied his discretion by refusing to make the garnishee order absolute on equitable grounds despite expressly finding no misuse of confidential information; absent a reasonable ground such as an established insolvency process producing pari passu distribution, the garnishee order should be made absolute and the master’s order restored.
4 Oct 1968

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TONG IU AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TONG IU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA31/1968

The Particulars and Conditions of Sale together with the signed Memorandum constituted a completed contract of sale that conferred immediate possession and enforceable payment obligations; failure to perform the building covenant did not automatically discharge the contract and, on the facts, there was no unconscionability sufficient to engage equitable discretion to deny the Crown its legal remedy; accordingly the Crown was entitled to judgment for the unpaid instalment of $82,856.