Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Inducing/procuring breach of contract

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

DP WORLD DJIBOUTI FZCO v. CHINA MERCHANTS PORT HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3861
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA763/2023

The 2023 Action was struck out in its entirety because both the JVA claim and the 2006 CA claim constitute an abuse of process: the JVA claim is materially identical to a claim already in the 2018 Action and the 2006 CA claim raises matters that could and should have been pursued by amendment in the 2018 Action (Henderson v Henderson and Aldi Stores principles); accordingly there is nothing left of the 2023 Action and it must be dismissed; the court declined to decide the substantive question on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 pending any application to amend the 2018 Action;…
16 Jun 2021

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. ASIA ALLIED INFRASTURCTURE HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA371/2014

The Memorandum of 12 September 2013 was a valid and enforceable contract granting Goldbay Fortis a preemptive right; necessary implied terms (good faith / best endeavours / no acting to deprive preemption) were implied to give business efficacy; Rich Resource wrongfully repudiated the Memorandum by terminating before the objectively assessed Deadlock Stage and by acting in bad faith in securing and implementing the HP MOU with High Peace; Asia Allied (Chun Wo) procured that repudiation and is jointly and severally liable with Rich Resource; Goldbay Fortis is awarded damages for loss of bargai…
16 Jun 2021

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. RICH RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1684
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2449/2013

The Memorandum of 12 September 2013 created a valid and enforceable preemptive right supported by consideration and subject to implied terms (including duties of good faith and best endeavours not to deprive the grantee); Rich Resource wrongfully repudiated the Memorandum by terminating before the objectively ascertained Deadlock Stage and in bad faith and had entered a binding memorandum with High Peace before termination; Asia Allied (Chun Wo) procured that breach and is jointly and severally liable with Rich Resource; damages for Goldbay Fortis were assessed at HK$164.01 million; countercl…
18 Jan 2011

PAUL\'S MODELS ART GMBH & CO. KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PAUL\'S MODELS ART GMBH & CO. KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1501/2000

The court allowed the proposed Re‑Re‑Amendments because they arise out of the same or substantially the same facts as the pleaded case, the amendments were appropriately particularized, three defendants did not oppose and there was no unremediable prejudice; even if a new cause of action were pleaded it arose from the same facts so limitation did not justify refusal. On discovery the court exercised discretion to limit disclosure to invoices (read down from wider categories) where other documents sought were disproportionate or irrelevant, ordered targeted affidavits from specified defendants…

Hong Kong Case Law

DP WORLD DJIBOUTI FZCO v. CHINA MERCHANTS PORT HOLDINGS COMPANY LTD

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. ASIA ALLIED INFRASTURCTURE HOLDINGS LTD

GOLDBAY FORTIS LTD v. RICH RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT LTD

PAUL\'S MODELS ART GMBH & CO. KG v. U.T. LTD AND OTHERS