Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estoppel by silence

Legal area

Court

18 Nov 2003

VICTORY STAR LTD v. NG FUNG YING AND OTHERS

Citation

VICTORY STAR LTD v. NG FUNG YING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV108/2003

There was an arguable pleas of estoppel because the defendants unequivocally offered and carried out removal of the unauthorised structures and the plaintiff remained silent when notified; that silence could amount to a representation to accept the defendants' remedial course and estop the plaintiff from alleging failure of substantial performance, so leave to defend was properly granted and the appeal lacked merit.
11 Dec 2001

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD. v. WINLIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD.

Citation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD. v. WINLIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ10199/2001

The defendant remained personally liable to refund the HK$90,000 deposit despite assignment because the covenant was personal and did not run with the land; the plaintiff's silence did not amount to consent or novation and therefore did not estop the plaintiff; the action was brought within the statutory limitation period so laches did not bar the claim; judgment entered for the plaintiff for deposit, interest and costs.
19 Jul 1989

NELSON HOLDINGS INC. v. DAVID HSIA

Citation

NELSON HOLDINGS INC. v. DAVID HSIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1099/1987

Article 3.2's 'best efforts' requirement is a condition precedent but, on the facts, the board satisfied it; plaintiff's payments were made under compulsion to avert bank action and were not officious; the losses claimed were not too remote and therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover the amounts it paid on defendant's behalf; specific performance of loan agreements is inappropriate; estoppel by silence fails for absence of duty to disclose.
17 Nov 1988

MORISON, SON & JONES (HONG KONG) LTD. v. YIU WING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

Citation

MORISON, SON & JONES (HONG KONG) LTD. v. YIU WING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV76/1988

The Court held that a plaintiff may bring Order 14 proceedings after pleadings and discovery; delay is a relevant discretionary factor but not fatal per se; the earlier setting aside of the default judgment did not create issue estoppel because no determination on merits was made; plaintiff's evidence established no triable issue on the claim for additional work but there were triable issues on the defence of delay/liquidated damages (claimed $458,000), therefore summary judgment should be varied to allow the defendant to defend to the extent of that set-off and the judgment sum reduced accor…
14 Jun 1984

TANG SIU LING v. THE PACIFIC INSURANCE CO LTD

Citation

TANG SIU LING v. THE PACIFIC INSURANCE CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4910/1983

A printed notice sent several months before the issue of the writ was a good and sufficient notice under s.10(2)(a) because the statutory requirement only prescribes a latest time (within seven days after commencement) and its main object is to allow the insurer an opportunity to repudiate liability; the particular letter read as a whole conveyed adequate warning and no estoppel arose.
8 Apr 1982

LAM YIN FEI t/a WAH SHING GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO AND ANOTHER v. HANG LUNG BANK LTD

Citation

LAM YIN FEI t/a WAH SHING GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO AND ANOTHER v. HANG LUNG BANK LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3037/1980

The bank failed to discharge the burden to show the debits should remain because the 'Rules for Current Accounts' para.3 and the account note did not constitute a clear contractual verification agreement making statements conclusive; absent such an express contractual term or actual knowledge/wilful blindness by the customer, failure to report errors does not bar a claim for forged cheques, nor does silence estop the customer.
13 Sept 1947

TANG CHI KIN v. TANG FONG CHUEN

Citation

TANG CHI KIN v. TANG FONG CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV10/1947

Respondent was not estopped because no legal duty to disclose the forgery existed as between strangers in the absence of a special relationship or intention to induce appellant's conduct; respondent was unaware appellant was making improvements and appellant failed to prove detriment caused by respondent's silence, so the trial judge's declaration of respondent's title and award of possession and mesne profits stands.

Hong Kong Case Law

VICTORY STAR LTD v. NG FUNG YING AND OTHERS

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD. v. WINLIGHT DEVELOPMENT LTD.

NELSON HOLDINGS INC. v. DAVID HSIA

MORISON, SON & JONES (HONG KONG) LTD. v. YIU WING CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD.

TANG SIU LING v. THE PACIFIC INSURANCE CO LTD

LAM YIN FEI t/a WAH SHING GARMENT MANUFACTURING CO AND ANOTHER v. HANG LUNG BANK LTD

TANG CHI KIN v. TANG FONG CHUEN