Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loss of profits

Legal area

Court

28 Jan 2025

HU QINQIN trading under the name or style of \'FOOT PUNCTURE\' (a firm) v. ACTION GAIN LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 516
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1522/2020

While expert evidence on quantum was in principle justified, the Plaintiff’s draft expert report failed the Relevance Condition because the comparables and publicly sourced data relied on were unsuitable and the expert relied on unverifiable materials (the Purported Ledger and solicitor‑provided data), rendering the report speculative and of no probative value; therefore leave to adduce that expert evidence was refused and the appeal dismissed, with costs to the defendant on a nisi basis.
6 May 2024

MAMMY PANCAKE COMPANY LTD v. CARLA DAY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1044/2021

Given the franchise relationship, the strategic importance of the Michelin‑awarded Shop, and specific communications that Plaintiff would take the lease if franchisee did not renew, lease negotiation information fell within the contractual duties of confidentiality and good faith; the 1st and 2nd Defendants acted dishonestly by misleading Plaintiff and facilitating the 5th Defendant to take the lease, thereby breaching those duties and causing loss; damages for lost profits assessed at $3,803,782.32 and exemplary damages of $300,000 awarded; costs to plaintiff awarded.
30 Sept 2022

BESPARK TECHNOLOGIES ENGINEERING LTD v. A TECH M & E ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3024
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT65/2019

On the evidence the court found two binding lump‑sum sub‑contracts were formed based on the amended quotations and parties' conduct; absence of unit rates/breakdown did not defeat contractual certainty in the circumstances; BeSpark repudiated the contracts by termination and A‑Tech was entitled to the value of work done at contract prices (HKD 1,472,522.53 net) plus damages for loss of profit calculated at 7.5% of the remaining contract value (HKD 1,523,402.83), totaling HKD 2,995,925.36, with interest and costs.
5 Apr 2017

BLU ENERGY DRINK (ASIA) LTD v. CHAMPION IN LTD (WHY CLUB)

Citation

BLU ENERGY DRINK (ASIA) LTD v. CHAMPION IN LTD (WHY CLUB)
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ274/2016

The Agreement did not contain an enforceable obligation requiring the defendant to order 35 cases per month for 24 months; accordingly there was no breach by ceasing orders and the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged losses, so the claim is dismissed.
4 Dec 2013

TONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS t./a ISLAM FOOD 清真牛肉館 v. TAM LUN SANG t/a 北京清真牛肉館

Citation

TONG WAI MAN AND OTHERS t./a ISLAM FOOD 清真牛肉館 v. TAM LUN SANG t/a 北京清真牛肉館
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1597/2010

Plaintiff's claim for loss of profit is rejected for failure to prove that any marginal drop in turnover was caused by the defendant; however, the defendant engaged in deliberate passing-off and caused reputational injury for which a fair and temperate award of HK$180,000 is made; no separate award for copyright infringement of the menu to avoid double recovery; interest and costs ordered.
5 Nov 2013

高美斯有限公司對彭中願

Citation

高美斯有限公司對彭中願
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1395/2011

Defendant breached the temporary lease by failing to execute the formal lease and deliver possession; plaintiff proved measurable financial loss (rent differential and reduced income), allowed deduction for avoided renovation costs, recovery of deposit and interest; accordingly judgment awarded to plaintiff in the sum of HK$619,340 and costs to plaintiff.
20 Apr 2012

TIM LEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD v. KWONG WAH t/a SUPER KING ENGINEERING CO

Citation

TIM LEE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING CO LTD v. KWONG WAH t/a SUPER KING ENGINEERING CO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT18/2010

The phrase 'back to back payment basis' in the subcontract meant Tim Lee was entitled to payment only when Super King received corresponding payment from its superior contractor (Wan Chung); there was no separate unconditional obligation by Super King to pay within a fixed period. The court found breaches on other heads: Super King wrongfully removed certain items (ceiling works) and Tim Lee proved entitlement to specified sums for redundant materials and underpayments; fraud was not established or properly pleaded. Judgment awarded HKD 758,801.29 to Tim Lee, interest from 27 July 2010 at 1%…
16 Mar 2011

TEAMWAYS LTD v. WP ENGINEERING LTD

Citation

TEAMWAYS LTD v. WP ENGINEERING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2753/2010

The court found the written quotation comprised 27 separately priced items and therefore the agreement was divisible; the expert evidence established 18 items had nil value and 3 items required repairs. The court discounted the contractual sums by 4% and awarded the plaintiff the discounted value of failed items (HK$256,416) plus repair costs (HK$8,000) and an assessed incidental loss (HK$10,000), totalling HK$274,416, plus interest and costs.
27 Aug 2010

HIROMORI INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLD OCEAN ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

HIROMORI INTERNATIONAL LTD v. GOLD OCEAN ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1015/2004

On the uncontested evidence the court awarded the plaintiff loss of profit $54,000, allowed recovery of the reasonable settlement paid to AIG of $189,142 and pre-action legal costs of $157,467, ordered interest at the judgment rate from date of judgment and costs to the plaintiff on the High Court Scale to be taxed if not agreed with Certificate for Counsel.
6 Aug 2010

WOON LEE (HK) CO LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD

Citation

WOON LEE (HK) CO LTD v. HOLYROOD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT4/2009

The judge rejected the owner's evidence as unreliable, drew an adverse inference from the failure to call the authorised person, accepted the contractor's evidence on variations, completion and valuations, implied a term that the owner would not hinder performance, found the owner repudiated Contract C by barring access and failing to pay, held the contractor lawfully terminated and is entitled to recover contract sums, agreed variations, interest and loss of profits; the owner's counterclaim for defects was dismissed for failure to prove causation and responsibility.