Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidated damages

Legal area

Court

29 Jan 2026

WAN MING SUN v. WONG HOI KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCA 91
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV72/2025

The 2nd defendant's appeal was dismissed for want of locus because the Official Receiver, as trustee in bankruptcy, did not consent to continuation; the Court exercised its discretion to lift the statutory stay for the 1st defendant due to inexcusable delay and lack of merit; on the merits the trial judge was correct that the defendants repudiated the PASP by failing to deliver required MG documents within the 14‑day contractual period, letters of 12 and 26 April 2023 did not amount to waiver or affirmation, time remained of the essence, and therefore the High Court's orders for return of dep…
12 Dec 2025

CAI DEYAN AND ANOTHER v. LAM TING HON

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6239
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1441/2024

Defendant had no arguable defence to purchasers' claim that his refusal to discharge the Third Mortgage and failure to remove it before completion posed a real risk of defeating purchasers' title; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Master's conditional leave to defend set aside, judgment entered for plaintiffs for return of deposits (HK$2,020,000) and liquidated damages (HK$2,020,000), with interest and costs.
13 Nov 2025

AGGRESSIVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v. WING YIP BUILDING MATERIALS & ENGINEERING CO., LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5586
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP446/2025

The court granted a quia timet injunction restraining the Defendant from presenting/taking out/advertising any winding-up petition based on the 1st statutory demand because the Plaintiff demonstrated a bona fide and arguable cross-claim (supported by HKHA's List of Outstanding Works) that may exceed the 1st SD; the court refused an injunction in respect of the 2nd statutory demand because the Plaintiff failed to show on substantial grounds that the payment application had not been received by its commercial department and an adverse inference was drawn from Plaintiff's failure to call relevan…
3 Nov 2025

S.C.A. TECHNOPOL LTD v. TIANJI INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5272
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA411/2025

The court found Tianji made fraudulent misrepresentations about its financial means, SCA rescinded the SPC by the date of the Writ, rescission nullifies the Addendum and prevents enforcement of the ILPC, and Tianji must compensate SCA the market value of the two ampoules (€2,592,000) and reimburse SCA for storage fees paid (HK$46,930.80); Tianji's counterclaim dismissed for lack of evidence.
25 Mar 2025

KO WING LIN JOHNNY v. CHAN PUI TONG

Citation

[2025] HKDC 516
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5455/2020

Defendant's defences of unilateral mistake, uncertainty/incompleteness and fraud failed for lack of sufficiently pleaded particulars and cogent evidence; the PSPA and Annex 1 formed a binding contract and defendant breached it by failing to provide the perpetual easement as agreed; plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages equal to the agreed initial deposit of HK$600,000 with interest as ordered; first and second third parties (agents) breached duties to defendant and are jointly and severally liable to defendant for 50% of the agreed damages (HK$300,000); first third party's counterclaim…
11 Mar 2025

HOPE RICH CONSULTING LTD v. LAU MING FUNG

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 491
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1263/2023

The Court held the Master's costs order was unreasonable and involved legal error because the plaintiff's failure to plead material facts made the defendant's Order 14A summons properly brought; the Master's invitation and the plaintiff's subsequent substantial amendments rendered the summons academic and fairness required the defendant to recover costs; the Master's order was set aside and replaced with an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the summons (HK$190,000) and of the appeal (HK$100,000), both with certificates for counsel.
21 Jan 2025

WAN MING SUN v. WONG HOI KWAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 394
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1408/2023

Clause 5 was a condition and, being time‑bound under Clause 20, defendants repudiated the PASP by failing to deliver company documents; plaintiff validly accepted the repudiation on 8 May 2023; Clause 16(b) is not a penalty and is enforceable; plaintiff is entitled to return of deposits, liquidated damages equal to the deposits and a lien on the company shares; costs follow the event.
12 Dec 2024

TANG YANG v. QIU SHICHANG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2086
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2922/2022

Clause 8 applies where the vendor failed to complete in accordance with the agreement; the defendant breached clauses 5(e) and 5(f) and those provisions are best characterised as intermediate terms (capable of fundamental breach); the breaches were fundamental and undermined the contract, entitling the plaintiff to terminate and to the refund of deposits and liquidated damages; alternatively the agreement contained an implied term that completion was subject to the purchaser's reasonable satisfaction of due diligence and that was breached, producing the same result.
18 Nov 2024

LAU SUI HING v. SUARD PATRICIA CATHY

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2028
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP92/2024

Requisitions No 3 and No 5 were validly raised and not satisfactorily answered, entitling the plaintiff to declaratory reliefs 1–3; Clause 7 when construed in context limited liquidated damages to the initial deposit of HK$90,000, but the defendant conceded and the court ordered repayment and damages in the total sum of HK$299,800 together with stamp duty HK$100 and interest; costs awarded at 85% of assessed costs (HK$98,600).
15 Aug 2024

RE HONG KONG EASY CHARGE LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2134
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW174/2024

The Company did not comply with the statutory demand and is therefore deemed insolvent under s.178(1)(a) CWUMPO; the Company failed to file admissible evidence in opposition because it did not comply with the conditional leave requirement to pay 50% of the debt into court; no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds was established on the material before the court; relief from the condition and leave to adduce out-of-time evidence was refused; accordingly the petitioner was entitled ex debito justitiae to a winding up order against the Company.