Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity agreement

Legal area

Court

16 May 2016

ASIA INSURANCE CO, LTD v. WARM HOME CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA INSURANCE CO, LTD v. WARM HOME CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV186/2015

The demand complied with the Bond because BNIL acted for and on behalf of the IO as expressly defined in the Bond and the Indemnity Agreement; the Bond did not expire upon termination of the Works Contract under Clause 4; the appellant failed to demonstrate a defence on the merits with a real prospect of success, so there was no basis to set aside the default judgment.
16 Jul 2015

ASIA INSURANCE CO, LTD v. WARM HOME CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

ASIA INSURANCE CO, LTD v. WARM HOME CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1116/2014

The judge found the defendant's challenge to the demand letter lacked merit because two authorised signatures were present and confirmed by the Employer; Clause 3 of the Indemnity Agreement unequivocally bound the indemnitor to accept payments made purportedly in accordance with the bond without inquiry; the defendant therefore had no real prospect of success and the default judgment should not be set aside.
22 Dec 2006

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. THE HONG KONG & YAUMATI FERRY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. THE HONG KONG & YAUMATI FERRY CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15329/1999

The Indemnity Agreement did not contain an implied enforceable obligation to negotiate in good faith; the Side Letter created monitoring obligations (to provide and permit verification of contractor claims) but did not impose a duty on Government to supervise or guarantee contractor performance; Government acted reasonably in its premium assessment and in terminating negotiations; letters of demand complied with clause 5; Government is entitled in principle to recover unpaid additional costs under the amended Indemnity Agreement, including retraction of credits for omitted items and reasonabl…
24 Mar 2004

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. THE HONG KONG & YAUMATI FERRY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. THE HONG KONG & YAUMATI FERRY CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15329/1999

The court held that because the pleadings created a clear dispute as to whether $1,059.25 million represented the full market premium as at 10 August 1998, the plaintiff must state its case on that point by providing further and better particulars; conversely the court found the plaintiff's explanation that the Lands Department relied on general experience to adopt a 4.5 year development period was a sufficient particular and the defendants were not entitled to specific comparable developments.
6 Dec 1983

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. CHOW CHEE YUM AND OTHERS

Citation

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. CHOW CHEE YUM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5301/1983

The appeal was allowed because there were substantial disputes of law on the interpretation of the bond and indemnity and substantial disputes of fact as to whether the bond expiry had been extended and the circumstances of the demand; consequently the Master's summary judgment was set aside and unconditional leave to defend was granted. The claimed estimated expenses of $90,000 were held not substantiated in the absence of strict proof.

Hong Kong Case Law

ASIA INSURANCE CO, LTD v. WARM HOME CONSTRUCTION CO., LTD AND OTHERS

ASIA INSURANCE CO, LTD v. WARM HOME CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. THE HONG KONG & YAUMATI FERRY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. THE HONG KONG & YAUMATI FERRY CO LTD AND ANOTHER

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE CO LTD v. CHOW CHEE YUM AND OTHERS