Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interpretation of contractual terms

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2021

GIANT HARVEST LTD v. NAN HAI CORPORATION LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2072/2018

The appeal and applications to adduce new expert evidence were dismissed because the proposed expert evidence was unnecessary or did not meet the Ladd v Marshall threshold; the tax issue did not justify withholding the Settlement Sum given the contractual allocation in Clause 8 and factual circumstances; valuation and fire/safety issues could be resolved without the proposed experts or were irrelevant on the agreed contract terms; costs awarded to OSGH Parties with certificate for two counsel.
10 Jul 2015

HAMPTON, WINTER AND GLYNN (a firm) v. VILUMS ROLANDS JANIS

Citation

HAMPTON, WINTER AND GLYNN (a firm) v. VILUMS ROLANDS JANIS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ820/2014

Defendant failed to demonstrate real and bona fide defences on the grounds of alleged errors in bills, a fee cap agreement and negligent advice, but did raise a triable issue as to the construction and effect of the 5 December 2013 Letter and whether the plaintiff wrongfully terminated the retainer; accordingly the plaintiff's summary judgment summons was dismissed and unconditional leave to defend was granted, with consequential directions and a costs order nisi in favour of the defendant for HK$800.
12 Jul 2013

ELITE BRILLIANT LTD v. BST (HK) LTD

Citation

ELITE BRILLIANT LTD v. BST (HK) LTD<br>
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA88/2012

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff raised credible, triable issues, including a plausible waiver of discrepancies and a legitimate interpretation issue over the phrase 'clean documents' (which the court found could properly be read as referring only to bills of lading); accordingly summary judgment under Order 14 Rule 5 was inappropriate and the plaintiff was entitled to defend.
17 Dec 2012

HUGE DRAGON CORPORATION LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUNG MUN OASIS

Citation

HUGE DRAGON CORPORATION LTD v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF LUNG MUN OASIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA524/2010

The Master erred by allowing administrative convenience to influence his decision; the defendant wrongly fixed the contribution at HK$23.82 per Management Share since 1998 instead of apportioning contributions in accordance with the budget and the management shares as required by the Deeds; appeal allowed and declaration granted in favour of the plaintiff.
1 Aug 2008

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWAN KIN SANG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. KWAN KIN SANG
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5698/2006

Although the Court found the payments were made by mistake of fact by LCSD staff, the Defendant proved he reasonably relied on continuous payments and representations, changed his position in good faith (tax treatment, significant expenditure, career choices) and it would be inequitable to require repayment; accordingly Plaintiff's claim for recovery of $869,818.89 was dismissed.
28 Jan 2004

SOUNDSTONE LTD v. ASIAN BUSINESS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

SOUNDSTONE LTD v. ASIAN BUSINESS LTD AND OTHERS
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1994/2002

Judge found on the evidence that Soundstone was the lender; the pleaded Amended Statement of Claim did not support an oral guarantee made contemporaneously with the oral loan agreement so that evidence was not admitted; the guarantee was signed after the advance and therefore lacked consideration; construction of the guarantee showed it to be conditional on UML settling shipments, so the guarantors' personal liability did not fall to be enforced. Claim against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants dismissed.
18 Jul 2000

JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD. v. FULLY WELL INVESTMENT LTD.

Citation

JAPAN LEASING (HONG KONG) LTD. v. FULLY WELL INVESTMENT LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV83/2000

The agreement, read as a whole, confines the contractual entitlement to 'Overdue Interest' to instalments that are not paid punctually (and for the period from each instalment's due date until payment) and does not confer an entitlement to charge the Overdue Interest on the whole outstanding principal or amounts called in; the normal 'Interest Rate' governs other sums including after judgment unless the contract expressly provides otherwise; the court will not interpolate or imply terms to extend Overdue Interest to called amounts absent necessity or clear intention.
10 Apr 1984

HONG KONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. HO MOOK LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. HO MOOK LAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDLA288/1983

Respondents had not themselves resided in the premises for an extended period and allowed non-party occupants (their parents) sole occupation; this constituted continuing breaches of clauses 2(g) and 2(j), entitling Applicant to forfeit the tenancy and re-enter. Payment of rent and past occupancy did not negate the requirement that the tenants themselves use the premises as their own private residence, and Applicant had no knowledge of abandonment until 1982 so no waiver arose.
28 Jul 1983

CEAR\'S INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. PANTER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

Citation

CEAR\'S INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. PANTER ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIAL CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA11672/1982

The court held that the contract, as evidenced by the signed documents and the parties' conduct, allowed price variation according to the defendant's price ruling at the time of shipment; the defendant validly treated the contract as cancelled when the listed price rose to $10.50 and gave notice, so there was no breach and the plaintiff's action was dismissed with costs.
25 Nov 1976

GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD v. FAR EAST MFTY HAIRGOODS CO LTD

Citation

GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD v. FAR EAST MFTY HAIRGOODS CO LTD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV34/1976

The space outside the factory was a 'passageway' in common use with the insured's premises, the PVC waste left there was not kept in metal receptacles, and 'removed from the building' means removal from the entire factory building; those breaches of the storage warranty defeated the insured's claim, so the appeal is allowed.