Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of contractual clauses

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 2022

TANG KWAI CHEUNG v. YEUNG SZE TING

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3329
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1287/2020

Clause 35(c) was validly included by the solicitors entrusted by both parties, was not the subject of rectification for mistake, the payment of HK$100,000 after the expiry of the clause did not waive or estop the plaintiff from exercising the unilateral contractual right to rescind, and the plaintiff validly rescinded by letter dated 4 August 2020; consequently the plaintiff must return the deposits with interest and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
15 May 2009

CHINA MEDICAL LTD v. AUTOSCALE RESOURCES LTD

Citation

CHINA MEDICAL LTD v. AUTOSCALE RESOURCES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2449/2008

The application to set aside the default judgment was dismissed because the Guarantee contains a non‑exclusive Hong Kong jurisdiction clause and no arbitration agreement with the defendant, section 6 of the Arbitration Ordinance and the UNCITRAL Model Law are not engaged, the arbitration between the Plaintiff and UPMG had not meaningfully commenced and may be futile, and the defendant failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success on the substantive defences (notably that an RTO satisfied an IPO obligation).
4 Feb 2008

HING SHEUNG FUNG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MAN KEE MANSION

Citation

HING SHEUNG FUNG INVESTMENT CO LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF MAN KEE MANSION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA59/2006

Clause 18 of the DMC concerns vehicle loading/unloading and does not authorise blanket exclusion of pedestrians from the driveways or passageway; the IOMC's closure unlawfully interfered with lawful visitors' rights under the DMC and could not be justified under s34I of the Building Management Ordinance; plaintiffs entitled to injunction and nominal damages of HK$100.
22 Jan 2008

ORIENTAL SHARP LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

ORIENTAL SHARP LTD v. HONG KONG HOUSING AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV426/2006

Special Condition 24(a)(ii)II applied to the 946 defaults so Oriental Sharp was entitled only to the guaranteed sum ($15,000 per sq. m.) accounted for with reference to deposits; cancellation agreements did not negate the applicability of the Special Conditions or alter third‑party rights; the tort claim failed for lack of causation and no wrongful interference, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
14 Mar 2006

YU FAT PIECE GOODS CO LTD v. PETER MERCANTILE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

YU FAT PIECE GOODS CO LTD v. PETER MERCANTILE CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2798/2002

The exemption clause as worded did not clearly and unambiguously exclude liability for breach of the statutory implied conditions of merchantable quality and fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Ordinance; "discrepancy" did not plainly cover non-merchantable or unfit goods, so there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal and leave to appeal was refused.
31 Oct 2005

SUN HUNG KAI INVESTMENT SERVICES LTD v. SHARP MERIT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SUN HUNG KAI INVESTMENT SERVICES LTD v. SHARP MERIT INTERNATIONAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1176/2005

Given the background facts and contemporaneous evidence, the defendant's non-factum and related defences were incredible or untenable; the Deed expressly made the guarantor a primary obligor and allowed enforcement without first proceeding against the customer; the Client Agreement gave the lender discretion on sale and did not require obtaining the best price; Clause 35 imposed no undisclosed limit; accordingly no triable issue existed and summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff against Ma for the amount claimed plus contractual interest and indemnity costs.
21 Dec 2000

GLOBAL TIME INVESTMENTS LTD. v. SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

GLOBAL TIME INVESTMENTS LTD. v. SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV16/2000

The 'usual architect's extension' in the sale contract did not exist because the certificate was neither granted by a person who was in fact acting as architect under the building contract nor pursuant to the contract's powers; accordingly Global and Super Keen were entitled to rescind, and clause 23(b) does not require Grand Million's knowledge for Global's right to rescind.
14 Jan 2000

SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD. v. GLOBAL TIME INVESTMENTS LTD.

Citation

SUPER KEEN INVESTMENTS LTD. v. GLOBAL TIME INVESTMENTS LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV346/1998

The Court held that the architect's purported extension was not the "usual architect's extension" contemplated by the sale agreement because he had not performed the ongoing duties required to enable an informed, balanced exercise of the extension power; that failure made the developer in breach of the first agreement, thereby entitling the Third Party (and derivative parties) to rescind; and that the Defendant had not lost its right to rescind because it lacked knowledge of the factual basis for rescission prior to giving notice. Therefore both appeals were dismissed and the trial judge's or…
8 Jul 1987

YEUNG KAM MAN v. THE URBAN COUNCIL

Citation

YEUNG KAM MAN v. THE URBAN COUNCIL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/1987

The 26 February 1987 letter, on its proper construction, unambiguously related to the earlier tenancy which had expired on 31 December 1986 and therefore did not validly terminate the new tenancy granted to the applicant commencing 1 January 1987; the purported termination was ineffective and the applicant was entitled to remain in occupation; appeal dismissed.
22 Feb 1972

PAK LO SAI v. LUK KAM CHOI

Citation

PAK LO SAI v. LUK KAM CHOI
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1950/1971

The September 1967 agreement superseded the earlier August agreement; clause 5 preserved the wife's right to apply for maintenance but only if a change in circumstances created a need; there was no evidence of such a change and the payments after the agreement were voluntary and unexpected, therefore the husband's cessation of payments did not constitute wilful neglect and the wife's claim is dismissed.