Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mutuality

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2017

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

Citation

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV209/2016

The appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to show a substantial ground for set-off or interest of justice: mutuality for set-off was lacking because the 1 March 2017 costs order benefits the Director of Legal Aid who holds a first charge and no variation (written direction or court order) was shown; the applicant's reliance on prospective costs was speculative and premature; accordingly there is no proper basis to set aside the statutory demand.
24 May 2004

RE THE SUN\'S GROUP LTD

Citation

RE THE SUN\'S GROUP LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW426/2003

The court held there was no bona fide dispute on substantial grounds as to the petitioning debts (Wong Kwan and Charcon) because the companies' factual and legal assertions lacked substance and were contradicted by contemporaneous documents and accounts; cross-claims brought by related subsidiaries could not be treated as the debtor companies' cross-claims because they lacked mutuality and therefore could not extinguish the petitioning debts; the deeming provisions and the companies' financial statements established insolvency; accordingly the court refused to dismiss the petitions but ordere…
2 Dec 2003

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV114/2003

The appeal was dismissed because there was no mutuality between the allocaturs in favour of the plaintiff (debts against the bankrupts) and the costs claimed by the trustees (debts owed to the trustees in their capacity post-bankruptcy), and because the plaintiff failed to prove that the estate had paid or been subrogated to the allocatur amounts; accordingly set-off was not available and the lifting of the stay was upheld.
2 May 2003

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2507/2000

The appeal is dismissed because the plaintiff failed to produce adequate evidence (contemporaneous bills, vouchers and supporting correspondence) to prove that the legal costs she incurred are payable by the estate and thereby give the estate a right of subrogation and a set-off; having found the evidence insufficient, the court upheld the Master's order lifting the stay of execution on the allocatur.
14 May 2002

WONG WAI KUEN t/a MEI TAK DECORATION AND ENGINEERING CO. v. POLYGON CONTRACTING LTD.

Citation

WONG WAI KUEN t/a MEI TAK DECORATION AND ENGINEERING CO. v. POLYGON CONTRACTING LTD.
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCSD28/2001

The statutory demand was set aside because mutuality existed so that legal set-off was arguable, equitable set-off applied given the close connection between the subcontract claims and the statutory employment debt, and the Applicant demonstrated a counterclaim/cross-demand exceeding the amount of the demand, warranting the exercise of the court's discretion to set aside the demand.
2 Apr 1993

Kao Lee & Yip v. John Richard Edwards

Citation

Kao Lee & Yip v. John Richard Edwards
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA8680/1992

The covenant was unenforceable because the defendant, as a salaried partner, did not share in the partnership's goodwill, assets, profits or liabilities and lacked equal bargaining power; accordingly the covenant was properly assessed as an employer-employee restraint and its worldwide territorial scope and five year duration were excessive and unreasonable and therefore void.
7 Feb 1992

KENTEX INVESTMENT LTD. v. HUI LAP PING SAM

Citation

KENTEX INVESTMENT LTD. v. HUI LAP PING SAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3447/1991

The provisional agreement's clause that limited vendor liability to repayment of the initial deposit plus an equivalent sum and that expressly barred the purchaser from proceeding with other claims was sufficiently clear to give the vendor the contractual option to call off the contract by paying that compensation, thereby precluding an order for specific performance.

Hong Kong Case Law

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

RE THE SUN\'S GROUP LTD

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN AND ANOTHER

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN AND ANOTHER

WONG WAI KUEN t/a MEI TAK DECORATION AND ENGINEERING CO. v. POLYGON CONTRACTING LTD.

Kao Lee & Yip v. John Richard Edwards

KENTEX INVESTMENT LTD. v. HUI LAP PING SAM