Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2013

WU CHI MAN v. MOE FANG

Citation

WU CHI MAN v. MOE FANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA607/2010

Leave to adduce the proposed expert evidence was refused because the application was inordinate delayed without satisfactory explanation, the expert evidence was unnecessary to decide the core trust claim (and the valuation would not affect adequacy of consideration), and permitting it would cause prejudice by depriving the defendant of reasonable time to instruct and obtain responsive expert evidence ahead of trial.
12 Jun 2007

LEUNG KAI HONG AND ANOTHER v. SHEEHAN DANNY WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG KAI HONG AND ANOTHER v. SHEEHAN DANNY WILLIAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1172/2006

The court held that demolition of the canopy removed an item that was a material part of the bargain such that the plaintiffs did not offer substantial performance; the vendor had knowingly concealed a Buildings Department demolition notice and made false representations about the canopy's legality; Clause 14 (entire agreement) could not be given effect to defeat a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation and is not reasonable under the Misrepresentation Ordinance; accordingly defendants were entitled to repudiate and succeed on their counterclaim.
27 Oct 2006

YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD

Citation

YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6521/2003

Leave to amend to add a new fraudulent/negligent misrepresentation cause of action was refused because the amendment was made late after the claimant closed its case, lacked the required particulars for allegations of fraud (when, where, how and date of discovery), and would cause unfair and irremediable prejudice to the defendants; limited and clarificatory amendments unconnected to the misrepresentation claim were allowed and costs were ordered to defendants.
25 Jul 2005

大通行文儀有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. CHERIE-MINT IMPEX LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

大通行文儀有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. CHERIE-MINT IMPEX LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2373/2002

The 1st Defendant breached the contract by supplying the 2,550 ink cartridges bearing a forged Epson trade mark as established by the convictions and corroborating evidence, and is liable to the 1st Plaintiff for the cost price and measured loss; the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were not found to have made representations or acted with fraudulent intent and are not personally liable; damages limited by privity to the 1st Plaintiff and quantified as the cost price plus a 10% allowance for loss of profit, totalling $201,157.80.

Hong Kong Case Law

WU CHI MAN v. MOE FANG

LEUNG KAI HONG AND ANOTHER v. SHEEHAN DANNY WILLIAM AND ANOTHER

YIP MING CHEONG AND ANOTHER v. IMADA LUENWAH WORLD LTD

大通行文儀有限公司 AND ANOTHER v. CHERIE-MINT IMPEX LTD AND ANOTHER