Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loss of goods

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2012

WORLD ASIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BRILLIANT TOP IN LOGISTICS LTD

Citation

WORLD ASIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BRILLIANT TOP IN LOGISTICS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL8/2011

The court found that Frankie Lai acted for and represented both defendant companies, that both companies functioned as an indistinguishable undertaking in providing storage and ancillary services, that they breached their duty as bailees by allowing an untrustworthy third party to assume control of the container (whether by collusion or negligence), and therefore both defendants were jointly and severally liable for the loss; judgment awarded for the plaintiff in the claimed sum with interest and costs.
30 Sept 2009

SUNRICH TRADERS LTD v. POLYCOTTON SL AND OTHERS

Citation

SUNRICH TRADERS LTD v. POLYCOTTON SL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL36/2006

Defendants accepted plaintiff's instructions to return the uncollected containers and remained responsible under the original bills of lading and as bailees; the April 19 2004 letter did not terminate that responsibility; defendants failed to prove they had parted with possession without negligence or to identify a valid delivery event for time‑bar reliance, and therefore are liable to plaintiff for the value of the lost goods and ancillary sums.
18 Dec 2006

LONGRAND ELECTRONICS LTD v. TOP UNIVERSAL LTD

Citation

LONGRAND ELECTRONICS LTD v. TOP UNIVERSAL LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2978/2005

Plaintiff gave sufficient notice and proved non-delivery; under the terms of the delivery note and applicable principles the defendant had the duty to ensure delivery and to adduce evidence of due delivery; the defendant failed to prove delivery, so the goods are treated as lost and plaintiff is entitled to recover the proven cost of the goods (HK$179,400) plus costs.
11 Dec 2001

Century Talent Investment Ltd. v. Danzas Aei (HK) Ltd.

Citation

Century Talent Investment Ltd. v. Danzas Aei (HK) Ltd.
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3664/2001

The court found, on the balance of probabilities, there was no agreement that the Defendant would accept payment by 30 instalments; the correspondence amounted to an offer or proposal only. Because liabilities and quantum were undisputed, the Defendant was entitled to set-off the counterclaim against the Plaintiff's claim, resulting in a judgment for the Defendant for the balance, with interest and costs as ordered.
6 Jun 2001

IMATION HONG KONG LTD. v. WEI FUNG INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.

Citation

IMATION HONG KONG LTD. v. WEI FUNG INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3834/2000

The court found on the evidence (manifest, invoice, delivery procedures and parties' admissions) that Wei Fung International Company Limited was the contracting carrier, not CTS; accordingly the defendant was liable for the loss of the goods and judgment was entered for the plaintiff for US$22,264.50 with interest and costs.
1 Nov 1994

YIP SHEK WU t/a TAT LEE GARMENT FACTORY v. YUE TEI MAY t/a CHUNG WAH TRANSPORTATION CO.

Citation

YIP SHEK WU t/a TAT LEE GARMENT FACTORY v. YUE TEI MAY t/a CHUNG WAH TRANSPORTATION CO.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1801/1993

The exemption clause was not proved to have been brought to the plaintiff's attention and therefore did not bind him; on the facts, by prior course of dealing and conduct the parties had accepted the risk of the lorry being parked in the street when unable to cross the border; plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that defendant's negligence caused the loss; claim dismissed.
13 Dec 1993

SHRIRO (H.K.) LIMITED v. SONIC AIR FORWARDERS ENTERPRISE LIMITED

Citation

SHRIRO (H.K.) LIMITED v. SONIC AIR FORWARDERS ENTERPRISE LIMITED
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA7812/1991

The court found Sonic had rebutted any prima facie negligence: the driver's actions in following the blue truck and stopping in the vicinity were not negligent or a radical deviation; Sonic was not an agent of NNR and therefore could not derive protection from the HAWB/MAWB limitation clauses; accordingly Shriro's claim failed and the action was dismissed; the defendant's remaining counterclaim, although admitted on the merits, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Claims Tribunal and could not be enforced in this court, so the counterclaim was also dismissed here.

Hong Kong Case Law

WORLD ASIAN INTERNATIONAL LTD v. BRILLIANT TOP IN LOGISTICS LTD

SUNRICH TRADERS LTD v. POLYCOTTON SL AND OTHERS

LONGRAND ELECTRONICS LTD v. TOP UNIVERSAL LTD

Century Talent Investment Ltd. v. Danzas Aei (HK) Ltd.

IMATION HONG KONG LTD. v. WEI FUNG INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD.

YIP SHEK WU t/a TAT LEE GARMENT FACTORY v. YUE TEI MAY t/a CHUNG WAH TRANSPORTATION CO.

SHRIRO (H.K.) LIMITED v. SONIC AIR FORWARDERS ENTERPRISE LIMITED