Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Licence agreements

  • 25 May 2023

    LI CHUN BON AND ANOTHER v. CHINA MOBILE HONG KONG CO LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKDC 466
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ617/2017

    The 2/F Assignment and the DMC granted 2/F Owner exclusive use, occupation and enjoyment of the main roof (including inner parapet sides and staircase enclosure) such that the defendant’s equipment was installed on 2/F Owner’s property; therefore no trespass to common parts under s34I Cap 344. The plaintiffs failed to prove actionable nuisance (no well‑founded danger, insufficient interference, insufficient evidence tying certain wires to defendant). Prior settlement argument could not be raised in closing without pleading. Accordingly the plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed and costs are ordere…

  • 7 Apr 2022

    THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF KINDGOM POWER COMMERCIAL BUILDING v. SHEEN WEALTH INDUSTRIAL LTD AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKDC 283
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4890/2018

    The summons to vary the Costs Order Nisi is dismissed because the defendants did not obtain a better result at trial than their Sanctioned Offer with respect to the fire‑fighting system, the 2nd Licence Agreement was held void ab initio eliminating any entitlement to licence fees, and there were insufficient reasons to disturb the Costs Order Nisi which had already accounted for the parties' overall positions including plumbing issues.

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. OCEAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CO LTD

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. OCEAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2914/2015

    The defendants' core factual allegation of clear assurances that licences would be renewable for 3-5 years is inherently unbelievable when tested against contemporaneous written licences and the Joint Letter and is legally unenforceable by statute; accordingly the defences of misrepresentation, duress, lack of standing, undue influence and promissory estoppel are unarguable and the plaintiff is entitled to final relief for vacant possession and to strike out the counterclaims; plaintiff entitled to indemnity costs under contractual clauses.

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. TSE WING KWAI

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. TSE WING KWAI
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3182/2015

    The alleged oral representations were inherently unbelievable when tested against the written Licence Agreements and a contemporaneous jointly-signed letter; even if true the alleged oral multi-year lease would be unenforceable under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance and thus could not support specific performance or estop the plaintiff from recovering possession; the auxiliary defences of economic duress, lack of standing and promissory estoppel were factually unsupported and/or legally unsustainable and the undue influence claim lacked any allegation or evidence that the plaintiff had…

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. BUN SAN SAN

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. BUN SAN SAN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3183/2015

    Defendants' primary factual assertion of longer-term renewable licences was inherently unbelievable and contradicted contemporaneous documentation (the written licence and the Joint Letter); even if believed the alleged oral agreement would be unenforceable under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance; equitable defences (promissory estoppel, duress, lack of standing, undue influence) failed on the facts or for lack of notice/particulars; accordingly plaintiff entitled to final judgment for vacant possession and defendants' counterclaim for specific performance struck out; indemnity costs aw…

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. NATIONAL SINO LTD

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. NATIONAL SINO LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2778/2015

    The defence of misrepresentation was dismissed as inherently unbelievable because the alleged multi‑year renewal representations were inconsistent with the plain written Licence Agreements and the contemporaneous Joint Letter; an oral alleged renewal agreement was unenforceable under Conveyancing and Property Ordinance Cap 219; related defences (economic duress, lack of standing, undue influence, promissory estoppel) were unarguable on the facts and law; accordingly plaintiff was entitled to final vacant possession, the counterclaim for specific performance was struck out, and indemnity costs…

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. RICH SUCCESS ENGINEERING LTD

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. RICH SUCCESS ENGINEERING LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3181/2015

    Alleged oral representations that licences would renew for three to five years are inherently unbelievable when tested against contemporaneous written licences and a joint occupiers' letter; even if believed, any such oral agreement is unenforceable under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance; other defences (economic duress, lack of standing, undue influence, promissory estoppel) fail on the facts or as a matter of law; plaintiff entitled to final vacant possession and counterclaims struck out; indemnity costs awarded per licence clauses.

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. CHEUNG CHI WAI t/a MAN TUNG MOTORS

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. CHEUNG CHI WAI t/a MAN TUNG MOTORS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3184/2015

    The defendants' primary defence of misrepresentation is rejected as inherently unbelievable when tested against the written Licence Agreements and the contemporaneous Joint Letter; even if the alleged oral assurances were believable they would be unenforceable under the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance, so the alleged oral renewal agreement fails as a matter of law; related defences of economic duress, lack of standing, undue influence and promissory estoppel are unarguable on the evidence and particulars; accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to summary relief (vacant possession) and the…

  • 14 Jul 2017

    HOBMAN CO LTD v. FORTUNE (WHOLESALE) LTD

    Citation
    HOBMAN CO LTD v. FORTUNE (WHOLESALE) LTD
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ3031/2015

    The defendants' central allegation of clear and unequivocal oral assurances of multi‑year renewable licences is inherently unbelievable when tested against contemporaneous written Licence Agreements and the Joint Letter; the alleged oral long‑term agreement is in any event unenforceable by statute (Cap 219) and the subsidiary defences (duress, lack of standing, undue influence, promissory estoppel) lack factual particularity or legal merit; therefore the misrepresentation defence and counterclaim are unarguable and summary relief for vacant possession and striking out is appropriate.

  • 21 Oct 2010

    KAU CHUN WING v. MAIN SHINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    KAU CHUN WING v. MAIN SHINE DEVELOPMENT LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV47/2010

    The parapet walls were common parts and the manager had authority under the DMC to grant licences to affix installations to those walls as part of its management functions; owners bound by the DMC impliedly consent to necessary access and the DMC's exclusion/indemnity clause barred recovery for acts done in pursuance of the deed absent criminality or wilful dishonesty, therefore the plaintiff's claims in trespass, nuisance, negligence and for breach of fiduciary duty failed and the appeal was dismissed.