Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Indemnity clause

Legal area

Court

21 Feb 2025

EST-OUEST AUCTIONS CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. NEW ART EST-OUEST AUCTIONS COMPANY LTD formerly known as NEW ART EST-OUEST AUCTIONS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 782
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCIP45/2023

The court exercised its discretion to refuse variation of the Nisi Order: the Defendant is not entitled to indemnity costs because Clause 14.1 does not bind the Defendant company; the Defendant's partial failure on Core Issue 3 justifies a 20% discount to its costs entitlement; the 80% order stands and includes the costs of the Injunction Summons; both variation summonses are dismissed with no costs ordered.
16 Aug 2021

CHEUNG KONG PROPERTY (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2330
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA280/2021

The Court exercised its discretion to award the Plaintiff its costs of the summons on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel because the Plaintiff acted reasonably in issuing and pursuing the interlocutory application given the Defendants' failure to notify, gaps and redactions in evidence, and because clause 9.05 of the ROFR Deed provided for indemnity costs as the starting point for the scale of costs.
16 Jun 2021

WONG MAN KAM PATRICK v. ECOSUCCESS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1725
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD50/2020

Applicants failed to discharge the burden of showing a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds or a counterclaim equal to or exceeding the debt: alleged misrepresentations lacked supporting documentary evidence and BMC had affirmed the contract; allegations of illegality were hearsay and did not show BMC had notice or would be required to restore funds; Clause 9(c) rendered guarantors primarily/concurrently liable even if BMC's obligations were unenforceable; counterclaims belonged to BMC (now in liquidation) and were not personal to applicants. Therefore SDs must not be set aside and credit…
2 Feb 2018

HONLINK DEVELOPMENT LTD v. KAM DAO CITY UNITED CLUB LTD

Citation

[2018] HKDC 135
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1371/2016

In the absence of the defendant and any contradictory evidence, the court accepted and placed full weight on the loss adjuster's reports and supporting contractor documents as reliable proof of damage and reasonable repair costs, allowing adjusted repair costs of $516,979 and loss adjuster fees of $43,515 under the tenancy indemnity clause, and awarded interest at HSBC best lending rate from 23 Mar 2016 and costs to be taxed.
10 Jul 2015

CHINA AGRI-PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINA AGRI-PRODUCTS EXCHANGE LTD v. WANG XIU QUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1807/2011

On the facts the original Order Nisi was fair and is maintained (plaintiff entitled to 50% costs of the striking out summons); defendants' summons to vary to no order as to costs is dismissed; plaintiff's summons for variation to order immediate payment and summary assessment is allowed: the striking out summons is severable and summary assessment is appropriate; defendants must pay the summarily assessed costs (and costs of both variation summons) with payment within 14 days after assessment; certificate limited to one counsel for the variation summonses; directions given for re-submission a…
27 Mar 2009

RICHFUL ENGINEERING LTD v. PINE YEAR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

RICHFUL ENGINEERING LTD v. PINE YEAR DEVELOPMENT LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2906/2004

The court found the sub‑contract was terminated by mutual consent and that the Chinese Agreement of 9 January 2003 constituted a binding compromise of pre‑existing claims; the indemnity clause in that agreement suspends, rather than extinguishes, payment obligations until remedial work is accepted by KCRC; expert evidence did not establish structural causation of the leakage so Plaintiff was not liable for most remedial costs; accordingly Plaintiff was entitled to the balance of the settlement (HK$1,000,000) less proved remedial payments (HK$160,000) resulting in judgment for HK$840,000 with…
11 Jan 2008

COWEALTH MEDICAL SCIENCE & BIOTECHNOLOGY INC v. WORLD CAPITAL PACIFIC LTD

Citation

COWEALTH MEDICAL SCIENCE & BIOTECHNOLOGY INC v. WORLD CAPITAL PACIFIC LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1122/2006

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence established that the First Four and Last Three Units were shipped and documented properly, delays were not attributable to the plaintiff, the documentary credit regime is independent and did not excuse defendant's payment obligations, the defendant had agreed in writing to pay the discount interest, and alleged oral variations were inadmissible and lacked consideration; therefore the defendant remained liable for the outstanding sums.
2 Oct 2003

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO LTD v. CHAN MEI LING

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO LTD v. CHAN MEI LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ20088/2001

The payments into court did not fully discharge the defendants' liabilities; the defendants declined to pay the amounts claimed and therefore the plaintiffs were entitled to litigate to recover what was owing; accordingly costs follow the event and the defendants must pay the plaintiffs' costs of these actions, including costs reserved by Judge Lok with certificate for counsel.
2 Oct 2003

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO LTD v. CHAN MEI LING

Citation

HOLIDAY RESORTS (MANAGEMENT) CO LTD v. CHAN MEI LING
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ20085/2001

The payments into court were insufficient to cover the defendants' liabilities; the defendants declined to pay the sums claimed and contested liability at trial, the plaintiffs ultimately succeeded on the substantive claims (including the indemnity), and therefore costs follow the event — the defendants must pay the plaintiffs' costs, including costs reserved by Judge Lok, with certificates for counsel.
27 Nov 2002

PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS INVESTMENT LTD. v. WABO LTD.

Citation

PROFESSIONAL BUILDERS INVESTMENT LTD. v. WABO LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV183/2002

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that the purchaser failed to take reasonable and timely steps to market the premises and mitigate loss; because the purchaser did not prove a rental shortfall that would have been incurred had it properly marketed the property, the vendor was not liable under clause 31(b); appeal dismissed.