Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture/re-entry

Legal area

Court

6 Dec 2010

SUM LUNG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CIRRUS VIEW MANAGEMENT CO LTD

Citation

SUM LUNG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CIRRUS VIEW MANAGEMENT CO LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2918/2010

Summary judgment was refused because material disputes of fact exist (whether unauthorised works remain, the true nature of the Defendant's business and whether it constitutes licensable undertaker activities) and because the Plaintiffs had not complied with the statutory pre‑reentry notice requirement under s58 Conveyancing and Property Ordinance; these issues must be resolved at a full hearing.
24 Jun 2002

SUPER CENTURY INVESTMENTS LTD. v. ADVANCE LTD. AND ANOTHERS

Citation

SUPER CENTURY INVESTMENTS LTD. v. ADVANCE LTD. AND ANOTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA73/2002

On the facts the 1st Defendant's substantial, persistent non-payment and conduct evinced either inability or an intention not to perform, amounting to repudiation; the writ constituted valid acceptance of repudiation; the 2nd Defendant as guarantor is liable for damages flowing from that repudiation under the guarantee; the Master's variation complied with Section 21F(10)(b) and the orders are valid; appeal dismissed and Master's decision upheld.
4 Mar 2002

YING HO COMPANY and Others vs THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

YING HO COMPANY and Others vs THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10834/1998

Only a narrow implied term was necessary: if culpable/unreasonable government delay prevents the grantee complying with building covenant periods, the period must be extended for that delay. Court found no culpable delay by Government between May 1994 and April 1996, no binding agreement by SPEL to grant free extensions, and the premia paid were valid consideration for forbearance. Therefore plaintiffs' principal claims fail and payments under protest are not recoverable absent duress or bad faith, neither of which was made out.
9 Nov 1973

CHAN MEI-LIN v. TANG WAH-LEUNG t/a WAH HING PLASTIC FACTORY AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN MEI-LIN v. TANG WAH-LEUNG t/a WAH HING PLASTIC FACTORY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV28/1973

The Full Court allowed the appeal in part: the Chambers judge was wrong to further scale down the award for lost rent and to deduct the deposit; a full year's rent at $700 per month ($8,400) should stand for assessed loss for future rent exposure and, together with the $3,500 deposit, the correct award is $11,900; nominal damages only are appropriate for destruction of the sheds because the parties knowingly incurred the risk and the defendant had no secure estate in the land.

Hong Kong Case Law

SUM LUNG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. CIRRUS VIEW MANAGEMENT CO LTD

SUPER CENTURY INVESTMENTS LTD. v. ADVANCE LTD. AND ANOTHERS

YING HO COMPANY and Others vs THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

CHAN MEI-LIN v. TANG WAH-LEUNG t/a WAH HING PLASTIC FACTORY AND ANOTHER