Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Exemption clauses

Legal area

Court

10 Apr 2026

ZHANG XIAOCHEN v. PC SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1975
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1160/2021

The court found the written contracts and surrounding warnings established an execution-only relationship and contractual estoppel, the plaintiff was a professional investor who made independent investment choices, and there was no sufficient evidence that the defendant assumed advisory duties or made negligent/reckless misrepresentations that the plaintiff reasonably relied upon; accordingly the plaintiff's claim failed and was dismissed.
23 Dec 2022

POOSAALA RAM PRASAD v. THE HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1876
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV466/2021

Although the statement of claim was defective and properly struck out in respect of the pleaded head of loss and inapt causes of action, the court held there was an arguable cause of action for breach of contract arising from the bank's failure to give prompt notice by the specified means in the telegraphic transfer form; accordingly the dismissal of the action was set aside and the plaintiff granted opportunity to apply to amend his claim to plead that cause of action and particulars of loss.
5 Mar 2021

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 10
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM116/2019

The Tribunal held that under Clause 7(a), read in context and in light of the estate’s management structure (Representative Committee and MLC) and historical practice, the manager has authority to organise community and recreational activities as acts reasonably incidental to management (Clause 7(a)(24)) when approved through the prescribed representative and budgetary processes; the planter is a common part because no registered instrument reserved it for exclusive use and the assignment plan excludes it; the DMC exemption clause bars damages absent criminality, dishonesty or wilful negligen…
5 Mar 2021

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 10
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM196/2018

The Tribunal held that, on proper construction of the DMC and having regard to the estate's management structure and historical practice, Clause 7(a) including sub‑paragraph (24) empowers the Manager to facilitate and organise community and recreational activities that are reasonably incidental to management when such activities are considered and approved through the Representative Committee/MLC and budgetary procedures; the planter outside the Applicant's flat is common part because it was not designated as exclusive in any registered instrument; the challenged 2018 budget items were proper…
5 Mar 2021

NG YUI TONG v. TAIKOO SHING (MANAGEMENT) LTD

Citation

[2021] HKLdT 10
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDBM191/2018

Where a DMC grants a manager broad management powers including acts reasonably incidental to management, organising modest community and recreational activities approved through the Representative Committee/MLC and budget procedure falls within those powers; planters not designated in registered instruments are common parts and may be repaired by the manager; exemption clause in the DMC bars damages absent criminality, dishonesty or wilful negligence; accordingly the applicant's claims fail and applications are dismissed.
3 Dec 2020

陳炳華及另一人 v. 家利物業管理有限公司

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA20/2019

The Court dismissed the appeal because the DMC was executed before CECO's effective date and thus CECO did not apply (s19); in any event s8(1) conditions for CECO to apply were not satisfied on these facts; Clause B6, fairly construed, exempted or limited the Manager's liability except for criminality, dishonesty or wilful negligence and is wide enough to cover ordinary negligence; there was no actionable nuisance attributable to the Manager on the facts; factual findings that the Manager arranged regular cleaning and was only negligent in not issuing reminders were upheld; the appellant as a…
10 Sept 2019

陳炳華 v. 家利物業管理有限公司

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2267
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA20/2019

Leave to appeal was granted because the grounds raised questions of law with a realistic prospect of success, including whether the exemption clause (Clause B6) was subject to the Control of Exemption Clauses Ordinance and whether the Adjudicator had erred in law in his treatment of exemption, nuisance and related issues; the Court could not conclude there was no reasonable prospect of success and therefore granted leave, with costs in the cause.
23 Mar 2018

CHAU KEI MAN RAYMAN v. CHATERS AUCTION LTD formerly known as CHRITRS AUCTION LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 662
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2310/2014

Defendant, as bailee/agent, owed a duty to take reasonable care of the plaintiff's teapots and to return them intact; res ipsa loquitur applied because the teapots were under the defendant's exclusive control and the defendant failed to offer any acceptable explanation; the Agent Contract exemption clauses were not sufficiently clear to exclude liability for negligence and, in any event, the defendant failed to prove they satisfied the statutory reasonableness test under Cap 71; therefore defendant liable, the teapots must be returned and damages were assessed and awarded to plaintiff.
11 Mar 2016

TERRY CHENG v. HO HO INVESTMENT LTD

Citation

TERRY CHENG v. HO HO INVESTMENT LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSA34/2015

The appeal is allowed because the adjudicator erred in law by applying bailment principles without first directing production and consideration of the contractual terms printed on the back of the receipt; there is no legal basis to impose a duty to keep goods for the duration of the limitation period merely because they might serve as evidence; accordingly the matter must be remitted for trial de novo before a different adjudicator.
5 Jan 2016

LI KWOK HEEM JOHN v. STANDARD CHARTERED INTERNATIONAL (USA) LTD (formerly known as AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD)

Citation

LI KWOK HEEM JOHN v. STANDARD CHARTERED INTERNATIONAL (USA) LTD (formerly known as AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD)
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA498/2010

Court found defendant, through its investment adviser/relationship manager, adopted and made representations about the FS Fund which the plaintiff relied on; however, on the central issue of negligence in initial and ongoing due diligence the defendant met the industry standard and had reasonable grounds to believe the representations to be true (relied on FGG, audited accounts by PwC, administrator/custodian Citco and regulator oversight), so defendant was not negligent and not liable under SFO s108 or in tort; contractual risk disclosure clauses were either inapplicable to this low-risk fun…