Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implied contract

Legal area

Court

8 Jun 2015

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS

Citation

MING HSIEH v. XU ZHE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3072/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the judge misdirected himself on legal principles, misapprehended material facts, or otherwise acted outside the generous ambit of discretion; the judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles (including Excel Courage), took proper account of the relevant factors when regranting the injunction, and the proposed grounds did not show reasonable prospects of success.
11 Oct 2013

YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

YU YIU WING v. LEAD YOUNG LOGISTIC (GLOBAL) LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA20/2012

The High Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Labour Tribunal because the Presiding Officer, while finding Lap Tak a sham and identifying control by persons tied to D2, did not make sufficient or clear findings to establish an express or implied employment relationship between D2 (or D1/Liu) and Yu. The correct approach required consideration of whether an implied contract or agency relationship existed; absence of such findings made a rehearing necessary. The court also accepted the parties' agreement that the Tribunal’s arithmetic required correction.
5 Feb 2010

LEUNG PING YEUNG AND OTHERS v. JETOUR HOLIDAY LTD

Citation

LEUNG PING YEUNG AND OTHERS v. JETOUR HOLIDAY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI707/2008

The court refused the Defendant's application to adduce expert evidence on liability because there was no accident sketch, tyre marks or other forensic data and the proposed expert evidence was neither necessary nor sufficiently probative; the court allowed evidence on industry practice to be given by the Defendant's experienced Director of Operations by way of a 14‑day supplemental statement rather than a separate broker; refused all requests for further and better particulars; ordered a stay of HCPI 857/2008, HCPI 858/2008 and HCPI 933/2008 pending determination of HCPI 707/2008; refused an…
16 Jun 2009

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI （CHINA） DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO., LTD.

Citation

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI （CHINA） DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO., LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2350/2007

The amendment pleading an implied contract was not clearly and obviously unarguable; on the pleaded facts an inference of an implied contract by conduct was reasonably open, issues of intention, illegality and consideration raised questions of fact unsuited to resolution on strike out, therefore amendment allowed and strike out dismissed.
16 Dec 2008

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO LTD

Citation

STANDARD HOLDINGS LTD v. FUJI (CHINA) DECORATION & ENGINEERING CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2350/2007

The original Statement of Claim is struck out because it lacks essential material facts and particulars to support the pleaded causes of action (fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and any implied contract claim). The action is not dismissed at this stage because it is not plainly frivolous or an abuse of process; the Plaintiff is permitted to amend with proper particulars within six weeks. The documentary credit had lapsed and any cause of action in relation to the L/C must be pleaded and particularised elsewhere.
31 Mar 2008

YEW SANG HONG LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

YEW SANG HONG LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV346/2007

The appeal was dismissed because Yew Sang's pleaded restitution, trust and implied contract claims lacked reasonable prospects: allowing restitution or directing direct payment would subvert contractual risk allocation and the statutory insolvency regime (resulting in unfair priority over other unsecured creditors), there was no identifiable specific fund or contractual provision creating a trust over retention monies and main contract clauses (GCC 69(3)(d) and GCC 83) and the pleaded facts did not support an inference of an unambiguous offer and acceptance to create an implied contract oblig…
17 Sept 2007

YEW SANG HONG LTD v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY

Citation

YEW SANG HONG LTD v. THE HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT79/2006

The strike out application succeeds because, as a matter of law, the plaintiff cannot establish any of the bases alleged: restitutionary recovery against the employer is precluded by the principle that one may not 'leapfrog' an immediate enrichee under an existing contract; no implied contract arises from the nomination/direct payment regime or the parties' conduct; and the retention monies are not held on trust because the contract (including GCC 83) allows the employer to retain or set off monies and there was no specific purpose creating a trust.
31 Aug 2007

PROFIT BOAT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CRAFT PROJECTS (HK) CO LTD

Citation

PROFIT BOAT DEVELOPMENT LTD v. CRAFT PROJECTS (HK) CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT122/2000

On the balance of probabilities there was no oral or implied joint venture between the parties; contemporaneous documents, conduct (tenders in Defendant's name, communications, meetings, failure to notify main contractor), and witness credibility (preference given to Defendant's witnesses) demonstrate absence of JVA; accordingly Defendant lawfully subcontracted Steelwork to Havens Steel; Plaintiff not entitled to wasted tender costs or contractual loss of profit and claim dismissed.
20 May 2005

MA CHI WING WENDY v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MA VINCENT, DECEASED

Citation

MA CHI WING WENDY v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MA VINCENT, DECEASED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3913/2001

On the facts the court accepted the plaintiff's credible evidence and surrounding circumstances as establishing (1) an enforceable oral agreement to share rent and household expenses that bound the deceased's estate, (2) that $435,000 was lent by the plaintiff to the deceased at his request and is repayable by the estate, and (3) that the plaintiff made payments for the operation of Johnson Trading at the deceased's request and is entitled to recover $750,944.71; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff totalling $1,347,944.71 and the defendant's counterclaims were dismissed.
25 Jun 2004

PARAGON SEARCH LTD v. GOODWILL INVESTMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD

Citation

PARAGON SEARCH LTD v. GOODWILL INVESTMENT (HOLDINGS) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA22073/1998

Plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant assented to the SFA or that a binding contract arose by conduct or estoppel; the interviews and subsequent employment did not demonstrate the requisite intention or assent to pay the claimed fees, therefore claim dismissed and judgment entered for the defendant.