Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity agreements

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2014

RE YUESHOU ENVIRONMENTAL HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

RE YUESHOU ENVIRONMENTAL HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW142/2013

The company failed to demonstrate a bona fide defence on substantial grounds. The 16 May 2012 Indebtedness Repayment Extension Agreement created an independent, enforceable right to payment of the indebtedness; the company's attacks on authenticity and validity of earlier Service Agreement and Deed of Indemnity were unconvincing and speculative. After credit for $1,000,000 received by the petitioner, $1,805,586.92 remains indisputably due. The summons to strike out the petition is dismissed and the petition is to be relisted.
9 Jan 2009

JOHN ROBERT LEES AND AND ANOTHER v. DESMOND CHUNG SENG CHIONG AND OTHERS

Citation

JOHN ROBERT LEES AND AND ANOTHER v. DESMOND CHUNG SENG CHIONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1180/2003

On construction the Indemnity Agreement, including the second paragraph qualified by 'but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing', covers provisional liquidators' remuneration, costs and disbursements not recoverable from company assets; the past consideration defence fails because the indemnity covered continuing services and because there was antecedent oral promise; factual defences (improper charging, failure to recover assets, negligence, unbillable items) were rejected on the evidence and because the bill was taxed by the Companies Judge; application for fresh evidence was…
12 Mar 2008

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

Citation

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

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV22/2007

The court held that the Government is entitled to have its Part 1 claim assessed but the trial judge's factual findings that the Omitted Items were not consequent upon the Alternative Design (paras 336–337) were unsupported in the record for the range of items contested; furthermore Demand Note 35 as sent did not comply with clause 5 because it lacked sufficient particulars to verify the claimed additional costs, and the matter must therefore be remitted for further assessment and procedural steps to remedy the notice deficiency.
5 Nov 2007

JOHN ROBERT LEES AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON INVESTMENT COMPANY II LLC AND OTHERS

Citation

JOHN ROBERT LEES AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON INVESTMENT COMPANY II LLC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1180/2003

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Master's refusal to admit expert evidence because the allegations related to general conduct of provisional liquidators and fell within the court's knowledge and supervisory role; no specialised or technical issues were shown that would necessitate expert assistance.
20 Dec 2006

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. FRANCO TONG SUI LUN

Citation

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. FRANCO TONG SUI LUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIA2/2006

The Court held that indemnity repayments were contingent personal contractual obligations not incurred 'in the performance' of the taxpayer's duties within the narrow meaning of s.12(1)(a); therefore they were not 'wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred' for salaries tax purposes and the Board of Review's allowance of the deductions was set aside.
18 Sept 2000

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

Citation

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

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA15329/1999

The court refused to decide the issues under Order 14A because material disputed facts central to the question of implied terms and contractual construction (including alleged assurances, customary land premium assessment practice and the extent of defective pile works and rectification) required trial determination; accordingly the Order 14A application and the related strike out application under Order 18 r.19 were dismissed.
1 Jun 1989

GUESS ?, INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS

Citation

GUESS ?, INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA604/1986

Leave to re-amend was granted but conditional on provision of ordered security; security for costs was ordered only up to completion of discovery (staggered approach). Quantum was assessed with substantial discounts: 1st–6th defendants HK$13,000,000 to date and HK$15,000,000 to completion of discovery; 7th defendant HK$6,000,000 to date and HK$9,000,000 to completion of discovery. Apportionment: Marcianos to provide 10% of costs to date and Guess 90%; for costs from present to completion of discovery Gasoline to provide 10% and Guess 90%. Liberty to apply for further security and leave to ame…

Hong Kong Case Law

RE YUESHOU ENVIRONMENTAL HOLDINGS LTD

JOHN ROBERT LEES AND AND ANOTHER v. DESMOND CHUNG SENG CHIONG AND OTHERS

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

JOHN ROBERT LEES AND ANOTHER v. DRAGON INVESTMENT COMPANY II LLC AND OTHERS

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v. FRANCO TONG SUI LUN

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

GUESS ?, INC. AND OTHERS v. LEE SECK MON AND OTHERS