Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exclusion clause

Legal area

Court

12 Nov 2020

啓元幹細胞生化技術有限公司 v. 香港聯合船塢集團有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKDC 1035
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ137/2019

Defendant proved a prima facie case for unpaid charges and contractual entitlement to retain the yacht; plaintiff failed to provide believable contemporaneous evidence or reasonable grounds for a bona fide defence, the deposit to a third party was irrelevant, and the plaintiff's counterclaim was both struck out and barred by an exclusion clause; therefore summary judgment and the Master's Order were correctly made and the appeal is dismissed.
21 Apr 2016

GEMERALDIAM BVBA v. MALCA AMIT FAR EAST LTD

Citation

GEMERALDIAM BVBA v. MALCA AMIT FAR EAST LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2015

Summary judgment was refused because there are reasonably arguable triable issues as to (1) the proper construction of the MA-Contract (including the defined term 'Shipment' and the scope of exclusions) and (2) the primary factual dispute whether the defendant received the Diamond; accordingly the defendant was given unconditional leave to defend and the application was dismissed with costs in the cause.
8 Aug 2013

LIONWAY INVESTMENTS LTD v. STACK ELECTRONICS ASIA LTD

Citation

LIONWAY INVESTMENTS LTD v. STACK ELECTRONICS ASIA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1272/2011

The TRIACs supplied were not of merchantable quality and not fit for purpose due to poor die-attach condition and poor solder coverage; the defendant breached the implied terms under the Sale of Goods Ordinance ss16(2) and 16(3); the alleged exclusion term was not in the Purchase Orders; plaintiff proved loss of USD312,302 and was entitled to judgment, interest and costs.
2 Apr 2013

MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS

Citation

MAINTEK COMPUTER (SUZHOU) CO LTD AND OTHERS v. BLUE ANCHOR LINE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAJ106/2008

Summary judgment was appropriate against the BAL Defendants (1st, 2nd and 4th as pleaded) because plaintiffs satisfied Order 14 preliminary requirements and the BAL Defendants failed to raise a credible defence on liability; Clause 3 time bar does not apply to non-delivery; Clause 17(B)I(2)(k) does not exclude liability for loss caused by failures which the carrier could have prevented by reasonable diligence (not force majeure); Clause 18.3 is a valid commercial limitation of liability and applies to negligent loss where consignor paid ordinary freight, but Clause 23.2 removes the limitation…
18 Oct 2012

YIU MEI LEE v. CB RICHARD ELLIS LTD

Citation

YIU MEI LEE v. CB RICHARD ELLIS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA43/2012

Leave to appeal was granted because there is a properly arguable question that the adjudicator misallocated the burden of proof notwithstanding the respondent's contractual duty to maintain drains, and clause B(5)(c) does not clearly exclude liability for the respondent's own negligence; issues on liability and quantum are therefore fit for appellate determination.
30 Sept 2010

BESTGUARD INVESTMENT LTD v. HON KWOK CHING

Citation

BESTGUARD INVESTMENT LTD v. HON KWOK CHING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1165/2009

Clause I of the PFTA and the Confirmation of Tenancy allocated the maintenance obligation for the air-conditioner to the Tenant; the landlord's payment for repair did not alter legal obligations absent consideration; the Tenant failed to prove causation or to mitigate any alleged business losses; accordingly judgment entered for the Landlord for the claimed sum with interest and the Counterclaim dismissed.
27 Feb 2004

DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER v. R J WALLACE AND OTHERS

Citation

DRAGAGES ET TRAVAUX PUBLICS (HK) LTD AND ANOTHER v. R J WALLACE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP6577/2001

Exclusion 1 is to be read as applying only where the insured seeking indemnity is itself the employer of the injured/deceased person; insurers, by their repudiation and subsequent conduct without clear contemporaneous reservation, waived reliance on general condition 4 as a defense to the plaintiffs' claim; apportionment and quantum not determined because key contributing insurer (AIU/National) is not before the court.
30 Mar 2001

Ng Ka Ho v. Kanic Property Management Ltd.

Citation

Ng Ka Ho v. Kanic Property Management Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ17055/2000

There was no contract between plaintiff and defendant (the contract was with Peace View); the arrangement was a licence to park, not a bailment, because there was no relinquishment of exclusive possession or control to the defendants; although a duty of care existed, the defendants provided only a basic parking attendant service and the plaintiff failed to show the defendants breached the reasonable standard of care; accordingly defendant not liable and claim dismissed.
2 Aug 2000

Yu Kam Lan and Another v. Goodwell Property Management Ltd.

Citation

Yu Kam Lan and Another v. Goodwell Property Management Ltd.
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM124/2000

On the established facts of repeated leakage and inadequate remedial action, the manager breached its express maintenance duties under the DMC and that breach constituted negligence; the exclusion clause did not absolve the manager from liability for negligence; judgment awarded damages and costs to the applicants.
12 Feb 1998

MAXY LTD. v. COIN ORGANIZE LTD. and Others

Citation

MAXY LTD. v. COIN ORGANIZE LTD. and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1457/1992

On the balance of probabilities the Court found Mr Lee was agent of the Plaintiff (not the Defendants) and that no representation as to redevelopment was made to Mr Lee by the Defendants; accordingly the Plaintiff's misrepresentation claim failed and the Defendants succeeded on their counterclaim, with damages assessed as the difference between contract price (HK$12.6m) and market value (HK$5.0m) = HK$7.6m.