Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In pari delicto

Legal area

Court

1 Apr 2020

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC (In Liquidation) v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA577/2015

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge correctly applied the substance test and related authorities, concluded the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law, found no legal error or misdirection in the balancing exercise on forum non conveniens, and determined the defendants had no realistic prospect of success on the proposed grounds of appeal.
25 Oct 2019

CMED TECHNOLOGIES LTD v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2631
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3272/2016

On the affidavit material the plaintiffs established a good arguable case that PW LLP carried on business in Hong Kong via the Chater Road office and resident partners and that the alleged negligent advice was received and relied upon in Hong Kong such that the tort was in substance committed in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law; accordingly Hong Kong is the appropriate forum and service on PW LLP via a partner in Hong Kong was valid, so the defendants' applications to set aside service and to stay for forum non conveniens fail.
25 Oct 2019

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES INC (In Liquidation) v. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP (a firm) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2631
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA577/2015

On the interlocutory materials the plaintiffs established a good arguable case that PW LLP carried on business in Hong Kong (so Order 81 applied), that the alleged negligent misstatements/advice were in substance committed and relied upon in Hong Kong and governed by Hong Kong law, and that defendants failed to show New York was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum; accordingly the defendants' applications to set aside service and for a stay were dismissed and the plaintiffs' curative applications were unnecessary (though would have been granted if required).
6 Aug 2015

CHAN YAU v. CHAN CALVIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN YAU v. CHAN CALVIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV202/2014

The Court held the agreements were illegal and unenforceable because they required the 2nd defendant, a mere nominee with no beneficial interest, to make a statutory declaration that he was the 'sole owner' when Government policy at the material time required sole legal and beneficial ownership; the plaintiff and 1st defendant knew this and were equally at fault, so restitution and contractual remedies are barred; the certificate of compliance did not waive Government rights and proportionality did not justify recovery where illegality was intrinsic to performance.
23 Jul 2015

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

LAW PAK FUN AND ANOTHER v. TAI LEE FAT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2003/2013

The application to strike out and to determine the legal question under RHC O14A was dismissed because the plaintiffs' resulting trust claim and the defendants' in pari delicto defence depend on disputed factual issues (payment of HK$1 million, the Deceased's knowledge and intention, and which solicitor acted for whom) that cannot be resolved on affidavit; therefore the claim is not obviously unsustainable and must proceed to trial.
15 May 2009

CHAN YAU v. CHAN CALVIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN YAU v. CHAN CALVIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA666/2007

Leave was granted to the 1st defendant to rely on his 3rd affirmation because the fresh evidence was relevant, credible and likely to have an important influence on the result by raising a real issue of illegality (which the court must consider even suo motu), and fairness required the plaintiff be given an opportunity to answer the evidence before any concluded view on illegality is formed.
25 Jan 2008

LAM SO LEI v. CHAN CHIT

Citation

LAM SO LEI v. CHAN CHIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2397/2007

Agreements under the pleaded facts provided for payments to the defendant to secure the release of a detainee and thus were contracts aimed at improperly interfering with the course of public justice; they were contrary to public policy and unlawful, placing the parties in pari delicto such that the plaintiff could not recover on breach or for money had and received; the cheque claim failed because it was given pursuant to a rescinded/voidable agreement and lacked consideration; accordingly the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and must be struck 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.
12 Dec 1972

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV12/1972

Clause 4 is to be interpreted as restrictive rather than obligatory, the tenancy agreement is valid and enforceable, and the cross-appeal succeeds: the defendant is entitled to pursue damages for the plaintiff's breach; assessment of quantum is remitted to the Registrar; defendant awarded costs.
20 Nov 1968

KWOK CHUNG TO v. WONG CHUEN SANG

Citation

KWOK CHUNG TO v. WONG CHUEN SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV15/1968

Appeal allowed in part: the eviction order was set aside because the appellant, who remained in possession and had acquired an equitable interest as part of a nominee arrangement, could rely on that possession and equitable interest to defeat the respondent's counterclaim for possession; the court will not permit the respondent to profit from the tainted transaction by evicting the appellant, though repayment of rents disbursed to the respondent remains payable.