Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Latent defects

Legal area

Court

1 Aug 2024

ECHELLES RIFFAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1994
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

Court found five Critical Defects (water pressure fluctuation and shared hydraulic drive; overheating and insufficient insulation; buckling) established and latent and that overturning risk was not established; implied terms were not necessary beyond express GCC Clause 3(a); Contract A had been accepted by payment and could not validly be terminated (remedy limited to damages for breach of warranty); Contract B effectively became deemed accepted and termination was lost; Contract C was validly terminated by Government for lack of adequate FAT parameters and non-delivery; damages awarded to Go…
10 May 2016

ECHELLES RIFFAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

ECHELLES RIFFAUD S.A. v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1841/2011

The court refused the plaintiff's proposed wider expert directions and adopted the defendant's narrower directions because expert evidence must be restricted to issues as framed in the pleadings; permitting unpleaded references to generic "published/applicable standards" or broad conformity questions would improperly enlarge the scope, increase costs and prejudice fair trial preparation; accordingly the defendant's proposed directions were adopted and costs awarded to the defendant.
1 Dec 2005

溢利印刷包裝(中國)有限公司 v. KARPEX (HK) LTD

Citation

溢利印刷包裝(中國)有限公司 v. KARPEX (HK) LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4102/2004

The court found the Plaintiff had raised an arguable set-off with prima facie evidence that the set-off exceeded the counterclaim, therefore the Plaintiff was entitled to leave to defend the counterclaim; further, the Defendant failed to demonstrate on current evidence that the Plaintiff would be unable to pay costs if ordered, so the applications for summary judgment on the counterclaim and for security for costs were dismissed.
12 May 2004

LEUNG TSANG HUNG AND ANOTHER v. TSE YIU PUI AND OTHERS

Citation

LEUNG TSANG HUNG AND ANOTHER v. TSE YIU PUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI595/2002

The 2nd Defendant, as occupier who used and benefited from the unauthorised extended canopy adjoining a busy public highway, owed and breached an absolute duty in nuisance and a duty of care in negligence to maintain the canopy; res ipsa loquitur applies and causation is established by want of repair. The 3rd Defendant (incorporated owners) had no sufficient control over the illegal extended canopy to impose a duty to inspect or repair and is not liable. Contractual allocation of repair between landlord and tenant does not negate the occupier's tortious duty to third parties.
20 Oct 1999

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.

Citation

BRAIN FUTURE LTD. v. CENTURY CROWN LTD.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV196/1999

The court held that even accepting the purchaser could raise a late requisition on reasonable grounds, the vendor's answer that no cocklofts existed was a satisfactory answer; the purchaser was bound by the contractual 'as is' clauses which excluded objections to alleged unauthorised structures, the vendor was not obliged to permit a joint inspection, and the purchaser's failure to complete was a fundamental breach entitling the vendor to forfeit the deposits; appeal dismissed.
20 Jan 1999

RAYABLE CONSULTANTS LTD t/a TAT MING ENGINEERING SERVICE CO v. CHAN KIT MAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

RAYABLE CONSULTANTS LTD t/a TAT MING ENGINEERING SERVICE CO v. CHAN KIT MAN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV52/1998

The Court of Appeal held that the 1st Defendant did not breach its duty because the critical weld defect was latent and not discoverable by reasonable inquiries the employer could have been expected to make, and that imposing a duty to discover such latent defects would exceed reasonable expectations; alternatively, causation was not established because any reasonable further inquiries would not have revealed the defect or avoided the accident. The appeal by the 1st Defendant was allowed and the finding of liability against it was reversed.
11 Aug 1998

KIND SPREAD DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. TSUI TSZ

Citation

KIND SPREAD DEVELOPMENT LTD. v. TSUI TSZ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9816/1997

The pleaded allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation and the conflicting factual accounts as to what was represented and disclosed raise substantive triable issues of fact; therefore summary judgment was inappropriate and the defendant was rightly granted unconditional leave to defend.
7 Jul 1998

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD. v. TSIEN WUI MARBLE FACTORY LTD. and Others and REMO RIVA and Others (Third Parties)

Citation

THE BANK OF EAST ASIA, LTD. v. TSIEN WUI MARBLE FACTORY LTD. and Others and REMO RIVA and Others (Third Parties)
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV189/1997

Court held BEA's cause of action for economic loss accrued on completion or shortly thereafter (defects were inherent in the design and led to progressive physical damage), so claims against Palmer & Turner were time-barred; Tsien Wui was not liable in tort for the independent consultant's negligence because it did not assume responsibility (design was performed by an independent consultant and parties approved that delegation), so BEA's appeal against TW failed.
11 Dec 1992

AJAX INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. ODYSSEY ITALY LTD

Citation

AJAX INTERNATIONAL CO LTD v. ODYSSEY ITALY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA5359/1991

The court found the defendant failed to prove the alleged universal defect and that reasonable inspections at production and before shipment would have disclosed the problem; the defendant did not rely on the seller's skill in a way that would import an implied term; the defendant also failed to mitigate loss by not discovering defects prior to shipment; accordingly the counterclaim was dismissed and judgment entered for the plaintiff for $140,029.02.
4 Jul 1984

POLYPRODUCTS INDUSTRIAL CO (A FIRM) v. HOLIDAY PRODUCTS (HK) LTD

Citation

POLYPRODUCTS INDUSTRIAL CO (A FIRM) v. HOLIDAY PRODUCTS (HK) LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP98/1972

The bottles were found to be defective in a latent way (inability to withstand concentrated detergent and pigment incompatibility causing colour bleeding), the defects were manufacturing defects not caused by mishandling, therefore the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price failed; the defendant's counterclaim was allowed in part for capital expenditures and design costs, and the plaintiff must return the moulds or pay $6,000 and the defendant was awarded $22,714.75 with entitlement to prove any additional difference in cost for substitute bottles up to 34,000 units.