Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

No oral modification clause

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2026

ORIENTAL FA LTD v. LAM CHOK LAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2301/2024

The appeal is dismissed because the defendants failed to raise any serious triable issue: their factual case was incredible and inconsistent with pleaded defence and contemporaneous correspondence; the no oral modification clause (incorporated into the Supplemental Agreement) bars the alleged oral variation and there was no acknowledgement of the formality requirement; and there was no sufficient detrimental reliance to found an estoppel.
28 Jan 2026

WONG MEI YUE v. EFT PAYMENTS (ASIA) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 607
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2060/2019

The Court construed the Agreement as obliging the Intermediary to introduce or procure merchants to use the Alipay payment service (not merely to introduce Alipay); Plaintiff never performed that obligation; accordingly Plaintiff’s claim for commission fails and is dismissed. The Court also found on the facts that the parties orally ceased cooperation in late December 2013, but (applying the higher threshold applicable to departing from a written termination clause) estoppel by representation was tentatively not made out; costs ordered against Plaintiff.
12 Dec 2025

CHEUNG KONG PROPERTY (BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT) LTD v. GOLD BRILLIANT INVESTMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6181
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA280/2021

The court found the Defendants breached the ROFR Deed by failing to serve a Proposal Notice; the alleged representations were negotiation posturing and not clear, unequivocal promises to forgo rights, the Plaintiff lacked the requisite knowledge and clause 9.04 was not overridden; implied terms claimed were unnecessary or contradicted express terms; on causation the Plaintiff would, on balance, have exercised the ROFR and there was a real and substantial chance MTRC/IB would have agreed such that loss of a chance is established; damages for that chance assessed at HK$1,574,718,422.90 (after a…
25 Sept 2025

LI KWAN HO v. TSOI KA YIN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4518
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1535/2021

The court found no economic duress, rejected the alleged oral revocation, held clause 3.10 of the Supplemental Deed unambiguous and covering both pre-existing and subsequent liabilities (including amounts defrayed using First Glory facilities), and ordered the Defendant to pay HK$26,338,568.24 to Worldex Resources with interest; the Deed and Supplemental Deed remain valid and enforceable and the Defendant's counterclaims are dismissed.
18 Jun 2025

HAVE RESULT FINANCE LTD v. CHAN HOW CHUNG VICTOR

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1382/2023

The court concluded that the defendant failed to raise any believable triable issue on the existence of the alleged 2022 restructuring agreement: the alleged agreement was vague, commercially implausible, unsupported by contemporaneous documentation or credible particulars, and inconsistent with the documentary record of written extensions; accordingly summary determination was appropriate, money judgment as per the plaintiff's account (CSY-21) was granted and an order for vacant possession made; the conversion summons was dismissed.
14 Mar 2025

GREAT PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. 张华荣

Citation

[2025] HKCA 266
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/2023

Leave to appeal was refused because the defendant did not raise any question of great general or public importance, merely sought to reargue matters already rejected by the courts below, and failed to show exceptional circumstances to engage the overriding discretion; the Court of Appeal correctly rejected the estoppel defence given the no oral modification clause and the plaintiff's rejection of Form 16 which operated as reasonable notice ending any suspensory estoppel, rendering the intended appeal devoid of merits.
11 Dec 2024

GREAT PACIFIC INVESTMENTS LTD v. 张华荣

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1147
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV206/2023

The estoppel defence was unarguable because the alleged representations were not clear and unequivocal, Yang disclaimed authority so no binding representation by the plaintiff was shown, the defendant failed to prove detrimental reliance causally linked to the representations, the Main Agreement required written variations, and any suspensory estoppel would have ended on reasonable notice; accordingly summary judgment and the entry of final judgment were properly granted and affirmed.
12 Nov 2024

INTEGRATED CAPITAL (ASIA) LTD v. CHAN TING

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3242
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1778/2022

The judge held that the defendant raised an arguable cheque-specific defence because the written loan agreements objectively supported that the undated cheques were delivered as conditional security and could only be used after specified events of default and written notice (Clause 13.2); those factual issues were hotly disputed and not suitable for summary determination. Because triable issues existed in respect of both the dishonoured cheques and the loans (including factual disputes about settlement and enforcement of security and procedural compliance under the loan terms), the appeal was…
31 Oct 2024

LI QING v. SFUND INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT FUND MANAGEMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2629
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCLA5/2024

The Presiding Officer erred in law by adopting an incorrect factual test (focusing on whether the Claimant performed work after 3 March 2022) and by failing to investigate the realistic possibility of termination by mutual agreement; accordingly the appeal is allowed, the Trial Decision and Review Decision are set aside and the claim is remitted to the Labour Tribunal for retrial before another Presiding Officer; costs of the appeal are awarded to the Defendant to be summarily assessed.
28 Oct 2024

RE EVERWIN ENTERPRISE (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3032
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW439/2024

The Company failed to discharge the burden of showing a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds: the alleged Shared Assumption was unsupported by any contemporaneous evidence, contradicted express terms of the Settlement Deed and the Option, and was inherently uncertain; the alleged Further Agreement by email was not a signed variation and any implied term would conflict with express provisions and formalities. Accordingly the Company is deemed insolvent and a usual winding‑up order was made.