Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Frustration of contract

Legal area

Court

20 May 2025

STAHL MATTHEW IAN v. BRILLIANT JET LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2013
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA31/2023

The DPO erred in concluding the Employment Contract was frustrated because the contract permitted alternative performance outside Shanghai and the evidence established only uncertainty as to visa grant, not impossibility; given Respondent offered no further evidence or submissions, a properly directed Tribunal could only have concluded no frustration; therefore wages in lieu of notice are payable to the appellant.
20 Sept 2023

GUANGZHOU FINANCE COMPANY LTD v. CHUNG KIN HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2398
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2815/2016

The court held the consolidated indebtedness was a debt/liquidated claim and that the 15 March 2011 written confirmation, together with the application of the balance of the set-aside sum (effectively booked as part payment on 1 April 2011), constituted a written acknowledgement and part payment sufficient to restart limitation under s23(3) as against the first defendant; the 28 October 2010 letter was equivocal and did not suffice; the 1998 Agreement was frustrated so the 1998 Guarantee did not render the guarantors liable and in any event claims under the guarantees were time-barred or disc…
15 Mar 2023

VEMBER LORD LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 371
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV84/2022

The abatement clause is triggered by events affecting the occupation or accessibility of the physical premises; community‑wide reductions in customer numbers from social unrest and the pandemic did not render the premises unfit or inaccessible nor make the landlord's obligations radically different, so the clause was not engaged and the leases were not frustrated; summary judgment for the landlord therefore had no error.
15 Mar 2023

VEMBER LORD LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCA 371
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/2022

The abatement clause was not engaged because the extraordinary circumstances did not affect the physical occupation or access of the specific premises; the clause is directed at events impinging on occupation/inaccessibility and not general business interruption. There was no frustration of the leases because performance was not made radically different—tenants continued to be able to occupy and trade—and no shared common contemplation or mandatory closure that would frustrate purpose. Summary judgment for the landlord was properly granted.
29 Jul 2022

SUNBROAD HOLDINGS LTD v. A80 PARIS HK LTD (formerly known as A80 ANOUFA PARIS HK LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA735/2020

The court found the frustration defence not arguable because COVID-19 and prior social unrest did not render possession or performance physically or commercially impossible nor transform contractual obligations beyond reasonable contemplation; the tenant failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving it was wholly unreasonable for the landlord to retain the lease, so the landlord is entitled to enforce rent obligations and summary judgment is appropriate on the pleaded grounds.
29 Jul 2022

SUNBROAD HOLDINGS LTD v. A80 PARIS HK LTD (formerly known as A80 ANOUFA PARIS HK LTD) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2251
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1174/2021

On the facts the defendant tenant failed to establish that COVID-19 and social unrest frustrated the lease; commercial unprofitability and reduced footfall do not meet the high threshold for frustration; the tenant also failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving it would be wholly unreasonable for the landlord to retain the lease so as to deny the landlord enforcement of rent; accordingly the frustration defence is not arguable and the mitigation/affirmation defence fails on the evidence.
15 Jul 2022

WHARF REALTY LTD v. ABEBI LIMITED t/a "ARMANI JUNIOR"

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA954/2020

On the assumed facts the events were unprecedented and caused severe commercial loss but did not change the nature of the parties' contractual obligations or physically render the premises unfit; the tenants therefore bore the market risk and the defences of frustration and abatement were not arguable, the counterclaims for quiet enjoyment and derogation were transient and unsustainable, and final judgment for the plaintiff was properly entered for the contractual arrears with interest and costs while unliquidated damages/mesne profits are left to assessment where appropriate.
15 Jul 2022

WHARF REALTY LTD v. AGB LEGEND LTD t/a "ABEBI"

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2036
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA955/2020

On assumed facts the defendants' defences fail: the doctrine of frustration does not apply because the Tenancy Agreements remained capable of performance and the risk of adverse market conditions lay with the tenants; the abatement clause requires physical damage and was not triggered; counterclaims for quiet enjoyment and derogation from grant allege only temporary/intermittent disturbances and are unsustainable; plaintiff entitled to final judgment for outstanding contractual sums and contractual damages, counterclaims struck out and costs awarded to plaintiff.
7 Jun 2022

SILVERCORD LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA269/2021

The defendant failed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal's decision in Vember Lord was likely to have a critical impact on the present appeals; granting a stay would cause material delay and prejudice to the plaintiffs; accordingly the stay application was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.
7 Jun 2022

THE ONE PROPERTY LTD v. THE SWATCH GROUP (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1693
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA268/2021

The application for a stay was dismissed because the defendant failed to show that the Court of Appeal decision was likely to have a critical impact on the appeals and because the delay from a stay would prejudice the plaintiffs; the court must favour cost‑effectiveness and expeditious resolution under RHC Order 1A.